# why is cfop "the best method"



## genericcuber666 (Oct 29, 2016)

i was reading the pole on what speedcubing method people used and i started to think 
"what makes cfop a compelling method?"
i use zz and in my very very VERY biased opinion zz is cfop but without rotations and an easier ll
and roux has less moves and better ergonimics than both of them

SO WHY DOES EVERYONE USE CFlOP?
p.s dont say "development" noone uses cfop so that they can learn more alg sets...


----------



## Rcuber123 (Oct 29, 2016)

It isn't... for 3x3

Most ppl go into CFOP not understanding this but it's the most universal method. It will help u solve/get good at the most cubes.

Roux? Good luck getting good at mega,pyra,bigcubes with that

Same with ZZ


----------



## Y2k1 (Oct 29, 2016)

I, myself being a zz ct user, think cfop is clearly the majority because of
A. Popularity
B. Look up how to get faster, guaranteed cfop
C. No "daunting" steps (although honestly, from being a beginner to now, eoline has always been much easier to be efficient at than cross)
D. Oll/pll recog compared to say Coll/cmll (again, coll is all I can see conpared to oll)
E. Elitist mentality

TLDR Cfop is just that accessible and not many people will take the time to understand other methods (or even realize their exist)

Personally, I still have to meet a cuber that has heard of zz or been on these forums


----------



## turtwig (Oct 29, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> zz is cfop but without rotations and an easier ll



Personally I think that solving for EO first isn't that worth it since I feel that RUL gen feels restrictive. Rotations aren't that bad especially at lower levels and there are a lot of F2L tricks to prevent or mitigate the effect of rotations. As for LL, unless you learn full ZBLL, OLL/PLL is not that much slower than Edges Oriented OLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL.



genericcuber666 said:


> noone uses cfop so that they can learn more alg sets...



I do. I haven't spent much time learning blockbuilding tricks and I enjoy learning algs, so I like that CFOP is more algorithmic.

Personally, I think CFOP is the most popular by a huge margin since:
1. It's the closest to the beginner LBL method so naturally people will advance to CFOP
2. It's already the most popular
3. It has the most resources: videos, algs, etc.
4. It's (arguably) better for big cubes, OH, feet and F2L knowledge can transfer to other events like Megaminx as well.
5. Most people don't bother switching for many reasons, they don't think the possible advantages of other methods are worth ditching all their CFOP knowledge, they're too lazy to learn a new method, they aren't a serious 3x3 solver anyway, etc.


----------



## Umm Roux? (Oct 29, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> i was reading the pole on what speedcubing method people used and i started to think
> "what makes cfop a compelling method?"
> i use zz and in my very very VERY biased opinion zz is cfop but without rotations and an easier ll
> and roux has less moves and better ergonimics than both of them
> ...


ZZ-CT>ZZ 
Shorter F2L stage because of final slot, short and sweet last layer(not a last layer but it is a last layer).


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 29, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> It isn't... for 3x3
> 
> Most ppl go into CFOP not understanding this but it's the most universal method. It will help u solve/get good at the most cubes.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with your point of view that it's harder to get better at mega or pyra with it (big cubes maybe but only for 5x5+). It certainly hasn't impeded me as far as I'm aware and may actually be better as my Mega method (similar to Yu Da Hyun) is very much based on blockbuilding and i really don;t see why CFOP shoudl be better for Pyra at all.

Also, most people go into CFOP for the following reasons more than anything else:
1) It is a natural progression from the beginner's that most people learn.
2) Very limited exposure to other methods until later.
3) Everyone uses it.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Oct 29, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I don't agree with your point of view that it's harder to get better at mega or pyra with it (big cubes maybe but only for 5x5+). It certainly hasn't impeded me as far as I'm aware and may actually be better as my Mega method (similar to Yu Da Hyun) is very much based on blockbuilding and i really don;t see why CFOP shoudl be better for Pyra at all.
> 
> Also, most people go into CFOP for the following reasons more than anything else:
> 1) It is a natural progression from the beginner's that most people learn.
> ...


Explain to me how that style of blockbuilding is more related to ZZ or Roux than CFOP. what ur talking about is just FreeFOP which is a VARIATION OF CFOP. for pyra all the sledges and price inserts are similar to F2L


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 29, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> Explain to me how that style of blockbuilding is more related to ZZ or Roux than CFOP. what ur talking about is just FreeFOP which is a VARIATION OF CFOP. for pyra all the sledges and price inserts are similar to F2L


Because in CFOP in general you don't blockbuild, especially 1xnxn blocks which is what the S2L i use is made up of.
Also, you do realise that the inserts are really no more like F2L inserts than the ways in which blcoks can be built? If anything they are more like CF methods and guess what roux is based off of.


----------



## GenTheThief (Oct 29, 2016)

turtwig said:


> 4. It's (arguably) better for big cubes, OH, Feet and F2L knowledge can transfer to other events like Megaminx as well.



I use ZZ for (3x3) OH and Feet. My blockbuilding knowledge transfers to Megaminx, for which I use an EO->Blockbuilding method.
Albeit, I'm not that great at any of them, but I do have the Illinois state record for Feet Mean and Single.
And while I _really_ suck at big cubes, iirc, someone said that (Hoya?)->ZZ isn't that bad for 5x5+.


----------



## turtwig (Oct 29, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> I use ZZ for (3x3) OH and Feet. My blockbuilding knowledge transfers to Megaminx, for which I use an EO->Blockbuilding method.
> Albeit, I'm not that great at any of them, but I do have the Illinois state record for Feet Mean and Single.
> And while I _really_ suck at big cubes, iirc, someone said that (Hoya?)->ZZ isn't that bad for 5x5+.



I agree. I was mostly referring to Roux being worse for side events.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 29, 2016)

turtwig said:


> Personally I think that solving for EO first isn't that worth it since I feel that RUL gen feels restrictive. Rotations aren't that bad especially at lower levels and there are a lot of F2L tricks to prevent or mitigate the effect of rotations. As for LL, unless you learn full ZBLL, OLL/PLL is not that much slower than Edges Oriented OLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. yeah
2. yeah
3. I don't think this is as much a factor other than when people type in "advanced speedcubing" into google or youtube it's only really CFOP that comes up.
4. for 5x5+ yes, OH no, feet i have no experience though there are a few which say it's not too bad, blockbuilding and LSE tricks (and the idea which goes with them) are more arguably more useful for side events like mega, FMC and similar (could also be useful for K4).
5. Unfortunately yeah


----------



## pglewis (Oct 30, 2016)

I can only speak for myself as a speedsolving n00b: 

1) I originally learned LBL back in the early 80s so it was a natural direction when I took it up again
2) Being popular means a lot of research has been done and a wealth of available information

I think it's a fair balance between speed potential and difficulty to learn.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 30, 2016)

If you search for a tutorial on how to solve the cube, there's a 99% chance that the tutorial you find will tell you to start solving the cross first.



genericcuber666 said:


> in my very very VERY biased opinion zz is cfop but without rotations and an easier ll


In the same sense that Roux is just CFOP but ignoring the M-slice until the end? And CFOP is just a structured form of Petrus but you delay the EO step until LL? Or in the sense that you just do EO-first CFOP and don't actually use ZZ.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Oct 30, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> EO-first CFOP and don't actually use ZZ.


who does this? because thats a horrible idea


----------



## turtwig (Oct 30, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> who does this? because thats a horrible idea



Hyeon Kyo Kyoung does EO Cross and he has a 5.91 single, making him faster than any ZZ solver, I believe.


----------



## DGCubes (Oct 30, 2016)

I agree with what everyone else said about CFOP. I think people use it because it's the most popular and has the most resources, which, in my opinion, stems from the fact that it is most like the standard beginner's method. After you learn a beginner's method, it's really easy to incorporate new OLL and PLL algs for the cases you learn. It would be much more difficult to have nothing in common with your original method, so people are probably put off by seeing that they'd need to start with F2B or EO line instead of cross.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Oct 30, 2016)

CFOP is arguably one of the easiest speedsolving methods to learn with few algorithms, it can be taught to a beginner fairly easily, and the fastest solvers in the world use it. Simple and fast, what's not to like?


----------



## Y2k1 (Oct 30, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> CFOP is arguably one of the easiest speedsolving methods to learn with few algorithms, it can be taught to a beginner fairly easily, and the fastest solvers in the world use it. Simple and fast, what's not to like?


Except. . I have been able to teach two people roux, 1 zz, 1 PCMS (for the lolz) , and 1 adams briggs ssc m whatever its called, showing that if beginners are open to a different mindset when solving the cube, they can learn blockbuilding just as easily as cross (try it with roux, I found it surprisingly simple to explain blocks and wht leaving the m slice is advantageous)


----------



## Loiloiloi (Oct 30, 2016)

Y2k1 said:


> Except. . I have been able to teach two people roux, 1 zz, 1 PCMS (for the lolz) , and 1 adams briggs ssc m whatever its called, showing that if beginners are open to a different mindset when solving the cube, they can learn blockbuilding just as easily as cross (try it with roux, I found it surprisingly simple to explain blocks and wht leaving the m slice is advantageous)


All you need to know to learn CFOP is cross, which many non-cubers already can do. The rest is intuitive F2L and easy algorithms. I still haven't gotten around to learn Roux.


----------



## TheChaiCuber (Oct 30, 2016)

1. easier transition from beginners method
2. definitely most popular in the cubing community (whether it should be, not my place to say)
3. this is personal in terms of both personal issue and personal commitment to cubing IRL, but I don't have time to learn a new method atm. I'm practicing very very slowly roux (I doubt I'll learn the corner orientation algs any time soon) and it'll be a long time before I can reach even close to the averages I get with CFOP.


----------



## Y2k1 (Oct 30, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> All you need to know to learn CFOP is cross, which many non-cubers already can do. The rest is intuitive F2L and easy algorithms. I still haven't gotten around to learn Roux.


Still biased. After all, if you see f2b on roux, its 2 easy cross pieces and f2l where you can use the m slice as a humongous advamtage, with the only algs needed for corners, and lse is definitely more intuitive friendly when explained properly


----------



## TheChaiCuber (Oct 30, 2016)

Y2k1 said:


> Still biased. After all, if you see f2b on roux, its 2 easy cross pieces and f2l where you can use the m slice as a humongous advamtage, with the only algs needed for corners, and lse is definitely more intuitive friendly when explained properly



Except that you have to take into account your f2b lookahead needing 5 pieces instead of cross in which a person is looking for 4 pieces. Also, those edge pieces that you are looking for can be more difficult to build together in an efficient manner for a beginner considering that they have extra spaces they can take up now (because the cross slots are empty). 

With the M slice being an advantage, roux users I think also use E and S slices as well to manipulate the cube in the most ways possible? At least that's from what I've seen. More moves that are prevalent in roux and not so much in F2L for CFOP is the r and l moves, as those make pair insertions much easier in roux. However did you consider that these are foreign moves to someone transitioning from beginners? Of course roux is easier for maybe you and I, and maybe its more intuitive-friendly, but tell that to someone who sees roux as this ethereal beast that contains so many exotic ways to solve the cube. 

If you ask me, I think both methods are very intuitive and roux provides more ways to be intuitive. That can lure or deter the person depending on who he or she is.


----------



## efattah (Oct 31, 2016)

My 2 cents is that like other sports, most people are followers, not pioneers. Therefore they will try to copy whatever the top performers in the world are doing. This is exactly like other sports. If the world record single & average for 3x3 are with CFOP and the top 10 in the world are all with CFOP, then people will use CFOP. If one day the top 10 in the world are all Roux, you can bet that the copy effect will trickle down and within 10 years everyone would be using Roux. Or whatever other method the top cubers are using. The only real exception to this rule would be if a new top method is designed that has only one variant, requiring 500+ algorithms, and all the top cubers use it and there are no simpler variants. In that case it would be impractical for most people and the trickle effect wouldn't be as strong.

Eric Fattah
BC, Canada


----------



## FJT97 (Oct 31, 2016)

Y2k1 said:


> Personally, I still have to meet a cuber that has heard of zz or been on these forums




Did i get you right? Never heard of another zz cuber?
There are many. Me for example


----------



## Y2k1 (Oct 31, 2016)

TheChaiCuber said:


> Except that you have to take into account your f2b lookahead needing 5 pieces instead of cross in which a person is looking for 4 pieces. Also, those edge pieces that you are looking for can be more difficult to build together in an efficient manner for a beginner considering that they have extra spaces they can take up now (because the cross slots are empty).
> 
> With the M slice being an advantage, roux users I think also use E and S slices as well to manipulate the cube in the most ways possible? At least that's from what I've seen. More moves that are prevalent in roux and not so much in F2L for CFOP is the r and l moves, as those make pair insertions much easier in roux. However did you consider that these are foreign moves to someone transitioning from beginners? Of course roux is easier for maybe you and I, and maybe its more intuitive-friendly, but tell that to someone who sees roux as this ethereal beast that contains so many exotic ways to solve the cube.
> 
> If you ask me, I think both methods are very intuitive and roux provides more ways to be intuitive. That can lure or deter the person depending on who he or she is.


1. It is true, I forgot to mention the advantage of r inserts
2. Of course roux osn


FJT97 said:


> Did i get you right? Never heard of another zz cuber?
> There are many. Me for example


I meant irl from cubers I bump into


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 2, 2016)

CFOP isn't objectively worse and widely used


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 12, 2016)

pglewis said:


> I can only speak for myself as a speedsolving n00b:
> 
> 1) I originally learned LBL back in the early 80s so it was a natural direction when I took it up again
> 2) Being popular means a lot of research has been done and a wealth of available information
> ...


Roux actually makes for a better sense of things like FMC and blockbuilding, things a lot of CFOP-ers dont know as well. I think rouxers actually have a better understanding of the cube. 
I use roux-n-skrew for square-1, meyer for bigcubes, and CLL for 2x2.
In reality, roux is the reason in sub-5 with 2x2, because I just recycled all my CMLL's and used them for 2x2. so roux can get you places, even if you dont think it can.
Think about it this way: 99% of the cubing population use CFOP. if 1% use something else and the top 10 are randomly selected from those 100, what is the chance that a cuber will solve with a different method? not too high.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Nov 13, 2016)

FJT97 said:


> Did i get you right? Never heard of another zz cuber?
> There are many. Me for example


At comps. And same here, actually. I occasionally ask and so far everyone uses CFOP, and about 5-10% of the time the know of other methods.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 13, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> At comps. And same here, actually. I occasionally ask and so far everyone uses CFOP, and about 5-10% of the time the know of other methods.


last comp I went to there was one person learning ZZ-CT but using ZZ/CFOP as main method, and there was no other roux solvers besides me.


----------



## pglewis (Nov 13, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Roux actually makes for a better sense of things like FMC and blockbuilding, things a lot of CFOP-ers dont know as well. I think rouxers actually have a better understanding of the cube.
> I use roux-n-skrew for square-1, meyer for bigcubes, and CLL for 2x2.
> In reality, roux is the reason in sub-5 with 2x2, because I just recycled all my CMLL's and used them for 2x2. so roux can get you places, even if you dont think it can.
> Think about it this way: 99% of the cubing population use CFOP. if 1% use something else and the top 10 are randomly selected from those 100, what is the chance that a cuber will solve with a different method? not too high.



I'm not exactly sure why you quoted me, but this is why I was reluctant to even post in here. It just turns into "don't use CFOP because I like my method better". And sometimes CFOP fits the solver better. I think ZZ is brilliant method and I love watching Roux solves as I find them incredibly elegant to watch. But block-building or EOLine were not nearly as intuitive for me to pick up as solving pairs and I already had a background in LBL from the early 80s.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 13, 2016)

I did swap methods at sub-40 from CFOP, and beat my PB within a few days. but It depends on the solver. I just dont think that 90% of the cubing population fits CFOP.


----------



## pglewis (Nov 13, 2016)

I'll personally likely stick with CFOP until I reach my goal of an official sub 20, then all bets are off. Roux is attractive now that I have a usable M slice that doesn't send the cube flying. ZZ just seems smart. I will eventually dig deeper into both to expand my horizons; even if I continue to stick with CFOP I'll pick up a lot of nice tricks.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 14, 2016)

pglewis said:


> I'll personally likely stick with CFOP until I reach my goal of an official sub 20, then all bets are off. Roux is attractive now that I have a usable M slice that doesn't send the cube flying. ZZ just seems smart. I will eventually dig deeper into both to expand my horizons; even if I continue to stick with CFOP I'll pick up a lot of nice tricks.


From what I heard, at 25 seconds is the best time to switch, cuz CFOP gets hard to improve on at that point.


----------



## turtwig (Nov 14, 2016)

pglewis said:


> I'll personally likely stick with CFOP until I reach my goal of an official sub 20, then all bets are off. Roux is attractive now that I have a usable M slice that doesn't send the cube flying. ZZ just seems smart. I will eventually dig deeper into both to expand my horizons; even if I continue to stick with CFOP I'll pick up a lot of nice tricks.



If you're thinking about switching, the earlier the better. Why would you spend time practicing CFOP until sub-20 to then just switch to Roux or ZZ?


----------



## pglewis (Nov 14, 2016)

turtwig said:


> If you're thinking about switching, the earlier the better. Why would you spend time practicing CFOP until sub-20 to then just switch to Roux or ZZ?



It's not "switching" per se, but spending time to learn the ins and outs of other methods because knowing more is good.


----------



## GuRoux (Nov 14, 2016)

turtwig said:


> If you're thinking about switching, the earlier the better. Why would you spend time practicing CFOP until sub-20 to then just switch to Roux or ZZ?


for me, i couldn't easily understand roux until i was around 25. before that, i always got lost watching tutorials.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 14, 2016)

When it comes to comps I think that the UK probably has the highest concentration of regular or active roux solvers per competition in the world.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 15, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> When it comes to comps I think that the UK probably has the highest concentration of regular or active roux solvers per competition in the world.


i agree. Here in San Diego, the last comp i went to the number of roux users(besided me) was ZERO.
It will be two at the next comp, because Guroux_ is also a san diegan and hes running the next comp.


GuRoux said:


> for me, i couldn't easily understand roux until i was around 25. before that, i always got lost watching tutorials.


 I didnt understand the last few parts of roux until after I learned 3 look last layer for CFOP, but all the time i was a CFOP cuber i played with roux just trying to solve. Most of the parts I didnt get at first I learned from waffo's tutorial(with the exception of 4a, which I learned from gilles's site). But the blockbuilding came naturally to me. Roux was easier fmr me to understand i think cuz when I first started I learned petrus as well as CFOP.. Why did it take you so long GuRoux?


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 15, 2016)

Freedom of blocks can be mindboggling if you're just starting out

<R,r,U> restriction seems arbitrary and learning to pair SB essentially involves intuitively figuring out more complex F2L pairs

Corner permutation isn't explainable in a noob-friendly way (unlike "get all the yellow stickers on top")

All the substeps in LSE seem obscure and unnecessary because you don't konw why you want to do them


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 15, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Freedom of blocks can be mindboggling if you're just starting out
> 
> <R,r,U> restriction seems arbitrary and learning to pair SB essentially involves intuitively figuring out more complex F2L pairs
> 
> ...


I said, I learned Roux while I mained CFOP, then switched once I understood it well enough. I didnt really even know F2L at that point, I just inserted the F2L edge then the corner and only knew a few basic pairs.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 15, 2016)

Yeah, I'm just explaining why it might not be what beginners want when they first start. And since there isnt' a great beginner variant of it out there LBL->CFOP wins


----------



## AreRouxAmused (Dec 27, 2016)

I switched to Roux when I was bored with CFOP and wasn't progressing without learning algs and felt restricted with f2l. Roux also looked really cool with the m slices. So I feel that CFOP is "the best method" to people since it is very structured and you, in my opinion, do not get a decent understanding of the puzzle until you get around sub 20 but with ZZ and Roux (also other) you get a better understanding of the puzzle and even if you can not solve big cubes as adaptable as CFOP but I feel like you can explore more with other methods.

(This is a joke)
CFOP is to restricting and forces you to learn only algs you have no free choice we need a Rouxvolution and to *insert pun that combines civil war and zz or something* also Hexagonal Ct ftw


----------



## Loiloiloi (Dec 27, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I'm just explaining why it might not be what beginners want when they first start. And since there isnt' a great beginner variant of it out there LBL->CFOP wins


I think 8355 is a great beginner's method that is very easy to learn, can be quite fast, and introduces you to a non-CFOP (and quite advanced) method, Heise.


----------



## Umm Roux? (Dec 27, 2016)

Let's just all say that CFOP is the best so when some non-CFOPPER becomes a cubing god, they can say that they are truly the best and unrivalled due to the fact that they are hampered by their method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 27, 2016)

Umm Roux? said:


> Let's just all say that CFOP is the best so when some non-CFOPPER becomes a cubing god, they can say that they are truly the best and unrivalled due to the fact that they are hampered by their method.


So you're discounting Alex Lau and Phil Yu in this then?


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 27, 2016)

Here is my thought on it.

Every person has a method that works best for them.

If a nub were to look up "Solve the Rubik's cube faster" C-FOP will show up.

I think it is popular because of the cross and the world is lazy to learn how to do a good EO-Line or Roux block.

Faz is fast because CFOP works well for him.

I am sure their is some sub 30 cfop solver that if he/she learend a nother method, they would be sub 15 in a few days.

When I learned CFOP I felt like it was cool, but didn't fit me and thats why I use ZZ.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 27, 2016)

Loiloiloi said:


> I think 8355 is a great beginner's method that is very easy to learn, can be quite fast, and introduces you to a non-CFOP (and quite advanced) method, Heise.



Hm, i wouldn't go that far. It's a huge leap to go from keyhole to very advanced blockbuilding (pseudoblocks + influencing EO, making 2 pairs + solving edges with little space to move about)


----------



## James Snowden (Dec 27, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I'm just explaining why it might not be what beginners want when they first start. And since there isnt' a great beginner variant of it out there LBL->CFOP wins


However, I could never get used lbl, and so used petrus as beginner method, and found that much easier because of having fewer OLL algs. That's why I started with petrus and so continue with it, even though I don't know any other petrus users.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 27, 2016)

Mastermind2368 said:


> Here is my thought on it.
> 
> Every person has a method that works best for them.
> 
> ...


This kind of thing happened to me with roux. I was at a wall at 40 seconds when I switched.. within two days I had first, broken my CFOP Pb with roux, and second, I was averaging ~37 secs, 3 seconds better than I was with CFOP at the same time. Now, about 8 or so months later, my ao100 is sub-17 and I am pushing sub-15. Never again CFOP. Never again. (when I try, it ends up something like VHLS ->COLL->EPLL)
Best part? at comps people rage when I race them because I am a slower turner than them but I beat them by quite a bit.


----------



## Umm Roux? (Dec 28, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> So you're discounting Alex Lau and Phil Yu in this then?


*If *we were to say that CFOP undoubtedly improves times then they could say that they are even better than their times may suggest.


----------



## Ayman (Dec 30, 2016)

I am sub 15 with all cfop, roux and zz method. But in my opinion the best methods is not by its lags. It's which one you feel most comfortable with. So my suggestion is that there is no best method but only the one which you feel best. So there is no need of discussing about it. But the CFOP is the most easiest and effecient and best fingertricks with it.Roux is real fast and hard and hard fingertricks. Where as ZZ is really good, efficient and mordern. So try all and find out your best method.

Good luck, 
Ayman
RoboCuber

.....


----------



## Julian Vargas (Dec 31, 2016)

I think people use CFOP because its the easiest to understand after learning lbl so naturally, they would switch to CFOP in which is basically the same thing but a little more advanced and more algorithms to learn. It's also the method which people like Lucas Etter and Feliks Zemdegs use so people will think that using CFOP and practicing will make them fast. But most people don't think about learning other methods simply because they are too lazy or don't understand it or they have the mindset of "There is no method better than CFOP.".


----------



## gateway cuber (Dec 31, 2016)

sooo, zz is great and all but RUL is kind of restrictive. I lke CFOP because you are 'free' to solve however the eck you want. as long as you get to F2L-1 or just regular LL it's still Cfop. Sometimes I just solve block type stuff because it's better. See cfop isn't the best because of the method itself its the best because of the freedom and potential through algs


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 31, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> sooo, zz is great and all but RUL is kind of restrictive. I lke CFOP because you are 'free' to solve however the eck you want. as long as you get to F2L-1 or just regular LL it's still Cfop. Sometimes I just solve block type stuff because it's better. See cfop isn't the best because of the method itself its the best because of the freedom and potential through algs


But ZZ still tends to be more efficient anyway depending on which LL you use and Roux even more so


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 31, 2016)

*I usually don't have autocorrect, but today it ran through this entire post, so sorry for any mis-quotes*



gateway cuber said:


> sooo, zz is great and all but RUL is kind of restrictive. I lke CFOP because you are 'free' to solve however the eck you want.


RUL may be restrictive, but I think it is still better than y rotations + F/B moves. Also, look ahead is better because edge orientation doesn't have to be figured out, and everything is just _there_, in nice blocks. DR/DL aren't hard to see either, it's just an open layer. They don't inhibit lookahead.

Also, that's called "free"FOP, not "C"FOP.



gateway cuber said:


> as long as you get to F2L-1 or just regular LL it's still Cfop.


LOL no
I can think of several methods that get to F2L-1 that aren't CFOP.



gateway cuber said:


> Sometimes I just solve block type stuff because it's better.


That's sounds like Petrus/FreeFOP, not CFOP. Slight method neutrality, as mentioned above, can be useful.



gateway cuber said:


> See cfop isn't the best because of the method itself its the best because of the freedom and potential through algs


Again, the discussion was about CFOP, not FreeFOP.
"freedom and potential through algs" doesn't make ANY sense. If I want to learn 1LLL [I use ZZ], I only need to learn <500 cases iirc.
If a cfoper wants to learn 1LLL they have to learn 3000+ algs iirc. How is that potential and freedom?
In almost every case, any alg set to influence/solve the last layer will be smaller with ZZ than with CFOP, which allows a ZZ user to spend less time learning algs, and practicing F2L, or more time learning algs that effect something else. I don't see how CFOP is better in this case.

Yes, CFOP has the move set <U, L, F, R, [B]*, y>, which is larger than most of ZZ <U, L, R, [D]>, and Roux <U, M, Rw, R>, but more isn't necessarily a better thing. ZZ and Roux don't have rotations, which is a plus no matter what.
*[Optional, but not often used]


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 1, 2017)

gateway cuber said:


> sooo, zz is great and all but RUL is kind of restrictive. I lke CFOP because you are 'free' to solve however the eck you want. as long as you get to F2L-1 or just regular LL it's still Cfop. Sometimes I just solve block type stuff because it's better. See cfop isn't the best because of the method itself its the best because of the freedom and potential through algs


ha. ha. ha. *cough cough like in roux Ahem*
Roux is even freer than in CFOP. Just look at some roux example solves.


----------



## Smiles (Jan 1, 2017)

no claims to cfop being the best or anything, but I like cfop because you never really have to think, u just have to look and react and memorize and repeat. it's easier to get fast at those than it is to get fast at thinking.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 1, 2017)

Smiles said:


> no claims to cfop being the best or anything, but I like cfop because you never really have to think, u just have to look and react and memorize and repeat. it's easier to get fast at those than it is to get fast at thinking.


okay.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 1, 2017)

Ayman said:


> I am sub 15 with all cfop, roux and zz method. But in my opinion the best methods is not by its lags. It's which one you feel most comfortable with. So my suggestion is that there is no best method but only the one which you feel best. So there is no need of discussing about it. But the CFOP is the most easiest and effecient and best fingertricks with it.Roux is real fast and hard and hard fingertricks. Where as ZZ is really good, efficient and mordern. So try all and find out your best method.
> 
> Good luck,
> Ayman
> ...



So what if you feel most comfortable with old pochmann? Comfort is only for casual cubers. Competitive speedcubers would obviously choose the fastest method e.g. CFOP


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2017)

Sajwo said:


> So what if you feel most comfortable with old pochmann? Comfort is only for casual cubers. Competitive speedcubers would obviously choose the fastest method e.g. CFOP


Well, if you don't enjoy doing something then don't do it (at least when it comes to cubing).

I mean I don't think there are many if any "competitive" speedcubers who don't do it for fun. Most would fall under the category of "casual" cubers who just so happen to be fast/good at it.

Also, I'm pretty sure he meant with a method which could be used to get fast if you wanted to and there are obvious restrictions to what methods that includes but overall you can pick the one from a handful of methods that you feel most comfortable with because you will likely want to practise more or improve fastest using it.


----------



## gateway cuber (Jan 1, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> ha. ha. ha. *cough cough like in roux Ahem*
> Roux is even freer than in CFOP. Just look at some roux example solves.[/QUOTEI]
> I know roux, I'm sub 20 with it, I also know ZZ I'm lik~15 secs with it,but no matter how much I practice those 2 I will never be faster with them than CFOP. Another thing I like about cfop is the TPS, not that ZZ doesn't have goo tps but EOline can be rough sometimes.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 1, 2017)

hm i think it is mostly this way

given some concept of "best" and a set of methods, there exists a ranking from best to worst

people have different concepts of best

it's also very annoying to find said ranking, maybe not that hard but nobody really gives enough of a ****/would be able to get other people to give enough of a **** to actually run tests

the only "data set" that we have are the times people get/record/post online, but those are hardly clean samples to derive conclusions from. the only significant result we can get from these is that something is "possible" (it's possible to sub-7 roux, and it's also possible to sub-7 CFOP). You can't really rule out the possibility of a sub-7 ZZ user on grounds that "it hasn't happened yet" (sorry, we haven't been to mars yet. it's just not going to happen guys. so many people have tried and are even still trying as we speak and nothing's really succeeded. i think our best bet is to just throw in the towel. lol let alone get to the moon, can you imagine how ridiculous a concept that is? i bet even if we had our best scientists working on that we couldn't get th- oh wait ****, nvm)

so when a new cuber comes on and looks at all the methods available and asks which he should choose, the response is that "methods don't have speeds" and that he should "choose the one he likes the most", which is not to say anything about whether or not some methods are objectivity better than others. it's simply a reasonable assumption to make that whoever's asking this question on a speedsolving forum might have a goal of improving his times, and given the difficulty of determining an objective best (or even a concept of best really) the pragmatic mindset to take really is that, of a set of methods like the big 4, it's a much better choice to spend time improving with one method than it is to spend time waffling about choosing the "fastest" one


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 1, 2017)

Smiles said:


> because you never really have to think, u just have to look and react and memorize and repeat.


This sounds like what I do with ZZ.
Unless I get a really nice combination of blocks, I can try and figure out how to solve them best.
But that's equivalent to xcross.


----------



## Ayman (Jan 21, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Well, if you don't enjoy doing something then don't do it (at least when it comes to cubing).
> 
> I mean I don't think there are many if any "competitive" speedcubers who don't do it for fun. Most would fall under the category of "casual" cubers who just so happen to be fast/good at it.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure he meant with a method which could be used to get fast if you wanted to and there are obvious restrictions to what methods that includes but overall you can pick the one from a handful of methods that you feel most comfortable with because you will likely want to practise more or improve fastest using it.


 


Sajwo said:


> So what if you feel most comfortable with old pochmann? Comfort is only for casual cubers. Competitive speedcubers would obviously choose the fastest method e.g. CFOP





Thanks, shadowslice for understanding me. And also sorry sajwo if i didnt convince you with my opinion. But i meant that the one you feel most efficient with, because you know god hasnt made everybody the same... But yes, I also think that CFOP has the ability to be the most fastest...


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 11, 2018)

Roux - Good for 3x3x3
CFOP- good for everything but 3x3x3.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 11, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Roux - Good for 3x3x3
> CFOP- good for everything but 3x3x3.



Please don't

This discussion is a year old.
Let it die
It's not fun arguing after a point


you didn't even give any arguments or explain why CFOP has held and holds so many WRs that it's good for everything but 3x3


----------



## Spencer131 (Jan 11, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Roux - Good for 3x3x3
> CFOP- good for everything but 3x3x3.


Roux is good for OH and feet. It's also good for big cubes if you have magnets and can do m slices properly


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 11, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> Roux is good for OH and feet. It's also good for big cubes if you have magnets and can do m slices properly





GenTheThief said:


> Please don't
> 
> This discussion is a year old.
> Let it die
> It's not fun arguing after a pointand holds so many WRs that it's good for everything but 3x3


----------



## cubing master (Jan 11, 2018)

CFOP is so much easier to get fast at because everybody uses it. with Roux and ZZ, you have to find little tricks on your own, but with CFOP, everything is done for you, so there is not much you have to figure out yourself.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 11, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> Roux is good for feet.


???????¿¿¿?¿?¿??


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jan 11, 2018)

I think he means rotations and low move count.


Sue Doenim said:


> ???????¿¿¿?¿?¿??


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 11, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> I think he means rotations and low move count.


I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?


----------



## Spencer131 (Jan 11, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?


Like someone else said, the low movecount is the main advantage. I do have some pretty good lse toe tricks


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 11, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?


And also, since when did a cuber have long enough middle toe and long enough fourth toe to do M and M2 slices?


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 11, 2018)

Yay we invented a new word! Toetricking!


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 11, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> Like someone else said, the low movecount is the main advantage. I do have some pretty good lse toe tricks


Like, actually? How do you do Ms?


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 11, 2018)

M': use your big toe to do the move and the rest of the toes to hold down the cube.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 11, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> M': ue your big toe to do the move and the rest of the toes to hold down the cube.


Good idea.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 12, 2018)

random question: what do you mean 3x3x3: 3.2(CFOP)?
does it mean that your record is 3.2 secs or 3.2 mins or 32 secs?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 12, 2018)

It's not.
Sincerely, a CFOP user for 5+ years.


----------



## pglewis (Jan 12, 2018)

Brute force should never be underestimated when time is of the essence.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 13, 2018)

It’s a good method in general but roux or another lower movecount method probably has greater potential. At the moment though for big cubes redux I believe cfop is the best method.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 13, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> random question: what do you mean 3x3x3: 3.2(CFOP)?
> does it mean that your record is 3.2 secs or 3.2 mins or 32 secs?


3.2 seconds, I got XXcross and LL skip.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 13, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> 3.2 seconds, I got XXcross and LL skip.


1. Don’t you use roux?
2. You average 35
3. Don’t try to pull a fast one on the cubing community, people here are actually intelligent.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 13, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> 1. Don’t you use roux?
> 2. You average 35
> 3. Don’t try to pull a fast one on the cubing community, people here are actually intelligent.


I used to do CFOP and averaged about 20 seconds. I saw that I could do a 2x2x3 block on inspection and I got a random LL skip.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 13, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> I used to do CFOP and averaged about 20 seconds. I saw that I could do a 2x2x3 block on inspection and I got a random LL skip.


Not even going to argue. This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the cubing community, so many 11 year olds telling people online how they got a sub 5 (or in this case sub 4) solve with the generic XCross of some sort and an easy LL with a skip of some sort


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 13, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> Not even going to argue. This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the cubing community, so many 11 year olds telling people online how they got a sub 5 (or in this case sub 4) solve with the generic XCross of some sort and an easy LL with a skip of some sort


Changed my PBs.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 13, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> Not even going to argue. This is one of my biggest pet peeves with the cubing community, so many 11 year olds telling people online how they got a sub 5 (or in this case sub 4) solve with the generic XCross of some sort and an easy LL with a skip of some sort


It's not completely out of the question (this probably happens with like 1 in 10^7 probability—low but not negligibly so), but this is why caring about singles is stupid. It's like bragging that you won the lottery: congratulations on being lucky, something that required practically zero skill on your part!


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 13, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> It's not completely out of the question (this probably happens with like 1 in 10^7 probability—low but not negligibly so), but this is why caring about singles is stupid. It's like bragging that you won the lottery: congratulations on being lucky, something that required practically zero skill on your part!



3x3 singles are not stupid. It's extremely hard to get UWR for world class cubers even with LL skip. It was just him faking and not providing any proof of actually getting a 3.2 solve.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Jan 13, 2018)

I personally think SSC is a great method, but Roux is probably the best, but my main method is finally (I've been switching methods for AGES, like 9 months) SSC just because I really enjoy the solves on it, and the movecount is really low. Would like to say

I'VE NEVER GOT LUCKY IN MY LIFE for singles, not even a UWR or even close, for example

3x3 average 18.89
3x3 single 16.77

2x2 average 3.4
2x2 single 1.01 not even sub 1


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 13, 2018)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> I personally think SSC is a great method, but Roux is probably the best, but my main method is finally (I've been switching methods for AGES, like 9 months) SSC just because I really enjoy the solves on it, and the movecount is really low. Would like to say
> 
> I'VE NEVER GOT LUCKY IN MY LIFE for singles, not even a UWR or even close, for example
> 
> ...


Roux IS the best! It has high TPS and low movecount
Side note: Forget that 3.2 , I removed it.End of argument


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 13, 2018)

There's a bunch of OH scrambles that were extremely lucky
(Accomplishment thread pg 3338)
I got a new pb using those scrambles, but would they count if I weren't doing OH since they were OH scrambles.


----------



## Sajwo (Jan 13, 2018)

Cubed Cuber said:


> There's a bunch of OH scrambles that were extremely lucky
> (Accomplishment thread pg 3338)
> I got a new pb using those scrambles, but would they count if I weren't doing OH since they were OH scrambles.



no, you have to use your own scramble, once


----------



## Elo13 (Jan 14, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?



Do LSE as <R,E>
I think Roux is viable for Feet, but has a much higher learning curve so I just use CFOP.


----------



## Spencer131 (Jan 14, 2018)

Elo13 said:


> Do LSE as <R,E>
> I think Roux is viable for Feet, but has a much higher learning curve so I just use CFOP.


A high learning curve is a silly reason to choose Cfop in my opinion. And I don't even think it's much harder


----------



## sloshycomic123 (Jan 14, 2018)

cfop is great


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 14, 2018)

sloshycomic123 said:


> cfop is great


CFOP is boring as hell


----------



## sloshycomic123 (Jan 14, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> CFOP is boring as hell


 Says the one with binary as their name


----------



## Elo13 (Jan 15, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> A high learning curve is a silly reason to choose Cfop in my opinion. And I don't even think it's much harder



It's definitely much easier to get fast at feet with CFOP than Roux, and I'm not even sure if Roux can be as fast.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 15, 2018)

@1973486 has some decent (~60) roux feet solves iirc
alex has like a 1:28 on his channel


----------



## 1973486 (Jan 15, 2018)

I have this on cam with R L x etc for LSE





Viljo is the fastest at Roux feet though


----------



## Gavin Olson (Jan 15, 2018)

genericcuber666 said:


> i was reading the pole on what speedcubing method people used and i started to think
> "what makes cfop a compelling method?"
> i use zz and in my very very VERY biased opinion zz is cfop but without rotations and an easier ll
> and roux has less moves and better ergonimics than both of them



I average about 2 rotations per solve.


----------



## _zoux (Mar 18, 2018)

1. similar to LBL.
2. a lot of additional substeps.
3. a lot of info.
4. good tut's.
5. easy lookahead.
6. very easy to sub 20. (at least what i experienced)
7. a lot of world class solvers use it .
7.5 popular af.
8. very good method until you discover other.
9. Le R, R' "reduction".
10. easy algs.
11. *cross.*


----------



## Mr.Roux86 (Mar 18, 2018)

Although there is the whole "more resources argument for CFOP," personally I think I prefer to have less (talking about Roux). Having fewer resources allows for more people to add to the community in their own creative way. Also, having fewer people telling you how to solve with a certain method, it allows you to develop your own style. This also allows you to explore and find things on your own. With fewer people using the method (Roux) it is a lot more fun to meet another Roux user at a comp. Not many CFOP users walk around and high five other CFOP users. When I see another Rouxer at a comp, we fist bump because we know we use the superior method.



Loiloiloi said:


> All you need to know to learn CFOP is cross, which many non-cubers already can do. The rest is intuitive F2L and easy algorithms. I still haven't gotten around to learn Roux.


Do it. It will help your F2L


----------



## CraZZ CFOP (Jan 21, 2019)

AlphaSheep said:


> If you search for a tutorial on how to solve the cube, there's a 99% chance that the tutorial you find will tell you to start solving the cross first.
> 
> 
> In the same sense that Roux is just CFOP but ignoring the M-slice until the end? And CFOP is just a structured form of Petrus but you delay the EO step until LL? Or in the sense that you just do EO-first CFOP and don't actually use ZZ.


EOCross is actually decent.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 14, 2019)

AreRouxAmused said:


> (This is a joke)
> CFOP is to restricting and forces you to learn only algs you have no free choice we need a Rouxvolution and to **insert pun that combines civil war and zz or something** also Hexagonal Ct ftw



RUL the world.

Oh gosh that’s late.


----------

