# If Fridrich weren't invented, what method would you use?



## Zhanchi1 (Apr 15, 2012)

Say fridrich(CFOP) wasn't invented, what method would use? 

If you don't use fridrich, just vote the method you use.


----------



## Ralinda4 (Apr 15, 2012)

Probably Roux. I learned it after stumbling across Donovan's tutorial yesterday, and I think it's really fun so far.


----------



## JianhanC (Apr 15, 2012)

LBL duh.


----------



## MostEd (Apr 15, 2012)

Fridrich is so simple, it could not have not been invented.


----------



## Lusti (Apr 15, 2012)

Probably Petrus, just learned it 1 week ago and its so much cooler than Fridrich!


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 15, 2012)

Petrus. It's the first method I learned after some crappy LBL method anyway.


----------



## drewsopchak (Apr 15, 2012)

ZZ seems like it has the most potential along with roux.


----------



## Jaycee (Apr 15, 2012)

I chose the "I'd make my own method" option. I'd discover what is now known as Fridrich/CFOP.


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 15, 2012)

Petrus ftw!!!


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 15, 2012)

Human Thistlethwaite


----------



## Ranzha (Apr 15, 2012)

Probably Petrus F2L without orienting U edges, and then CLL/ELL.


----------



## ThomasJE (Apr 15, 2012)

ZZ or Roux. If I had to pick one, then Roux.


----------



## Aria97 (Apr 15, 2012)

Roux!


----------



## Edward (Apr 15, 2012)

Roux roux a thousand times Roux
I'm still thinking about switching to it AGAIN


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Apr 15, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Probably Petrus F2L without orienting U edges, and then CLL/ELL.


 this


----------



## Thompson (Apr 15, 2012)

Roux is probably the next fastest but I didn't even know about it when I started learning Fridrich. The only other method I knew of was Petrus so I probably would've used that


----------



## foolish (Apr 15, 2012)

Roux since it's the only other method I can do (apart from LbL of course).


----------



## applemobile (Apr 15, 2012)

I would make my own method and call it Fwidrik.


----------



## ZamHalen (Apr 15, 2012)

Petrus just by the fact that I can do it faster than Roux.


----------



## cubeflip (Apr 15, 2012)

I'd probably be too lazy to practice block-building, so I'd learn ZZ and see how that is. I'm interested in learning ZZ and Roux.


----------



## JohnLaurain (Apr 15, 2012)

I'd probably learn ZZ, since it has so much potential, along with Roux.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 15, 2012)

If not Roux I'd use L2L4, because it looks cool or Heise because it's good for feet.


----------



## emolover (Apr 15, 2012)

It's stupid that you didn't put Columns First because i love using that.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Apr 15, 2012)

other i'd invent CFOP


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm surprised at the lack of Petrus.


----------



## already1329 (Apr 15, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm surprised at the lack of Petrus.


 
I'm surprised at the lack of ZZ.


----------



## PandaCuber (Apr 15, 2012)

If not for Roux, ZZ probably. Or petrus.


----------



## ben1996123 (Apr 16, 2012)

100% roux. If I wasn't sub 15 with fridrich, I would switch to roux.


----------



## dr01d3k4 (Apr 16, 2012)

Definitely Roux. I find it more fun to use than CFOP and have considered using it as my main, but I find it more awkward for big cubes reduction and one hand.


----------



## blackzabbathfan (Apr 16, 2012)

Probably Roux if I was going for speed. But if I wasn't then LBL.


----------



## A Leman (Apr 16, 2012)

since zz would not exist without the concepts of CFOP, I would use Roux because it's alot of fun.


----------



## cubernya (Apr 16, 2012)

A Leman said:


> since zz would not exist without the concepts of CFOP, I would use Roux because it's alot of fun.


 
How do you figure? EOLine isn't even close to cross, blocks aren't even close to F2L (although they achieve the same thing; petrus does the same), and then ZZLL which has tons more algs and one less look than OLL/PLL


----------



## A Leman (Apr 16, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> How do you figure? EOLine isn't even close to cross, blocks aren't even close to F2L (although they achieve the same thing; petrus does the same), and then ZZLL which has tons more algs and one less look than OLL/PLL


 I was expecting somthing like this. I can't prove anything since CFOP DOES EXIST, but the whole idea of building the first 2 layers with f2l seems much easier to invent than the clever idea of using eo to simpify the first two layers with ZZ blocks.(that's why zz was invented in 2006). roux and zz are both fun, but I could believe roux existing without CFOP much more than ZZ.


----------



## aaronb (Apr 16, 2012)

With all my knowledge of cubing now, I would WANT to use Roux. But I would be using LBL most likely. After LBL, I tried learning Petrus, but failed. I had a tough time grasping Roux's LSE even after like 6 months of cubing. So, with no other methods that would be considered widely better than LBL, I probably would've stuck with that.


----------



## sub10minutes (Apr 16, 2012)

I would use the method involving the hammer.


----------



## ottozing (Apr 16, 2012)

either roux or zz. petrus sucks.


----------



## MWilson (Apr 16, 2012)

I would do Roux, as I am currently switching to it anyway and firmly believe that if I had learned Roux before CFOP that I would have stuck with Roux 100%. Lowering move count in CFOP (besides extended cross and multislotting, which are, in a way, natural parts of a basic Roux anyway) consists mostly of learning new giant sets of algorithms. Like ZBLL, WV, RLS, etc. Lowering move count in Roux is just a matter of taking some basic concepts and applying them, since L6E is so dynamic with huge potential for influencing and skipping, and almost total freedom in the first two blocks.


----------



## Windsor (Apr 16, 2012)

I would either use 8355 or Rouz because I think it more fun becaue they're based on more of an intuitive mindset, to the contraire of Fridrich which is more like a "robotic" solivng type, because of all the algorithms.


----------



## aznanimedude (Apr 16, 2012)

seeing as how i use ZZ now, i'll vote ZZ, but now i mildly wish i started off as a petrus solver so at least i would have started off doing block building from the beginning, but alas i started off LBL -> CFOP -> ZZ
it's all good


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 16, 2012)

Since I know I'll never be very fast at 3x3x3 speedsolving, I'm sure I would simply use whatever it is that all the fast people use. I have no idea what that would be, but whatever it was, that would be what I would use.

If some other method ever becomes more common than Fridrich among fast solvers, I'll probably learn it and try to switch. Until and unless that happens, I'll probably just always stick with Fridrich.

While my motivation level is probably lower than most others here for 3x3x3 speedsolving, I still suspect the same would be true for most other people here as well - if Fridrich hadn't ever been invented, I suspect most of the other people here would also be using "whatever the fastest people currently use".


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2012)

Roux seems to be fast method too


----------



## Florian (Apr 16, 2012)

I guess i'd learn zeroing, i learned all the algs last month, but my recog is ****, so i'm faster with 
CFOP atm


----------



## irontwig (Apr 16, 2012)

Probably CFCE or Petrus.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 16, 2012)

Roux, because it's been demonstrated to be fast, though Rice is pretty cool.


----------



## Iggy (Apr 16, 2012)

Probably Roux.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Apr 16, 2012)

Well, I use Waterman, but if Fridrich didn't exist, I'm not sure if I"d be using Waterman (even though that's what I voted for). I ended up switching to Waterman from CFOP. I'm not sure it would have been the same if I stayed with Petrus. I'm pretty sure I would actually be using Petrus.


----------



## rk960925 (Apr 16, 2012)

Why no ZB?


----------



## Zhanchi1 (Apr 16, 2012)

rk960925 said:


> Why no ZB?


 
Because ZB includes F2L and even if you did the first part doing corners and then the edges/keyhole, there is ZBF2L.

Its hard to believe Roux is winning despite petrus is the second most popular method. Mabye speed


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 16, 2012)

Probably CFCE.


----------



## Cheese11 (Apr 16, 2012)

It wouldn't impact me one bit, so Roux.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 16, 2012)

Cheese11 said:


> It wouldn't impact me one bit, so Roux.


 
I think you might be surprised at how it affected you.

In less tactful terms, <citation needed>


----------



## Ickathu (Apr 16, 2012)

Probably Roux. Maybe ZZ or Petrus.


----------



## Dacuba (Apr 16, 2012)

I think I would have been too stupid to learn any other method without experience.
I seriously think I wouldn't cube. Maybe if I were dedicated enough, but rather not.


----------



## Pascal (Apr 16, 2012)

Of course Roux or maybe ZZ too.


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 16, 2012)

1. Rainbow
2. FreeFOP
3. KirFOP


----------



## Zhanchi1 (May 7, 2012)

Whats rainbow and kirFOP?


----------



## Eazoon (May 7, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> I chose the "I'd make my own method" option. I'd discover what is now known as Fridrich/CFOP.


 
that made me laugh out loud, and I never laugh out loud when I'm alone (which I was when I read it just now).

The thing is its not that I wouldn't cube, but I wouldn't speedcube. Speedcubing is now a big part of my life, but I never decided to "become a speedcuber", I just searched videos, and learned f2l, then 2-look oll, and so on. I wouldn't be a speedcuber if it weren't for cyoubx. But either way beginners method is based off of fridrich, so whatever the beginners method would be based off of, I would have learned that and learn algs to make that method faster.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 7, 2012)

Zhanchi1 said:


> Whats rainbow and kirFOP?



Both are very colorfull methods...



Eazoon said:


> But either way *beginners method is based off of fridrich*, so whatever the beginners method would be based off of, I would have learned that and learn algs to make that method faster.



*Whut?*


----------



## Godmil (May 7, 2012)

Eazoon said:


> beginners method is based off of fridrich



Other way around I'm afraid, Fridrich learned the beginners method before deciding to do all the OLL and PLL in one stage each... later F2L was added.


----------



## ~Adam~ (May 7, 2012)

How can anyone honestly answer the question in the poll? There is no way to know.

If the question was 'If you could retroactively pick your main method, without the option of CFOP, what would it be?' then I would go for Petrus.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (May 7, 2012)

cube-o-holic said:


> How can anyone honestly answer the question in the poll? There is no way to know.
> 
> If the question was 'If you could retroactively pick your main method, without the option of CFOP, what would it be?' then I would go for Petrus.


 
I agree, and I will also choose to respond as if the poll was asking your question, as it seems like a more reasonable question to answer. Maybe the question should be revised to something which doesn't rely on a major event in cubing history not happening, such as CFOP "not being invented". We'll never know what cubing would be like if Fridrich didn't publish a method, so phrasing this question like this seems rather unhelpful (in my opinion).


----------



## Bapao (May 7, 2012)

I'd be using the Peel Off Stickers method aka POS. Did not get on well with ROUX or Petrus.


----------



## BlueDevil (May 7, 2012)

So you're basically saying that no LBL method was invented (which is funny since your poll has LBL), because the odds of an LBL method being invented without the idea to create faster way to build layers is highly unlikely. 
Even so, in your near impossible alternate world, I would have learned whichever method was most accessible for a beginner cuber.

The poll doesn't apply to me.


----------



## markthema3 (May 7, 2012)

No entry for Heise method makes me sad. After Heise, it'd be a tossup between Petrus and ZZ.


----------



## scotzbhoy (May 7, 2012)

I imagine Petrus, since started learning it before I learned CFOP. However I don't see why I mightn't have then learnt Roux, since the fastest non-CFOP solvers use it. I probably would have seen that that's the method the fastest people use and tried to upgrade. I also came up with what I thought was a new F2L method before learning CFOP which was to solve the 4 F2L slots and then insert the cross pieces. Not sure if or how I would have developed that for the LL without CFOP though.


----------



## Eleredo (May 27, 2012)

Petrus


----------



## emolover (May 27, 2012)

Roux because I am switching to it anyway.


----------



## Rpotts (May 27, 2012)

Roux is cancer, everybody is switching to it nowadays. Imma use Triangular Fransisco, you've probably never heard of it.


----------



## mati1242 (May 27, 2012)

Probably Roux because I really want to learn it and I think it have potential.


----------



## Tristan97tfj (May 27, 2012)

Roux because it is the only other method I know aside from beginners.


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 28, 2012)

I'd use Petrus seeing as it was the first method I learned. Good old lar5.com/cube.


----------



## Jaycee (May 28, 2012)

Too much Roux these days xD I've lost emolover to the clutches of it anyway :'(


----------



## emolover (May 28, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> Too much Roux these days xD I've lost emolover to the clutches of it anyway :'(


 
I dropped off the CFOP team because I literally get worse as I practice. Also, it is so boring.

But don't worry, I am still for bigcubes and OH so I actually go both ways(giggity).


----------



## MalusDB (May 28, 2012)

emolover said:


> I actually go both ways(giggity).


 
dats wut she sed hurr durr.
But seriously, I would probably wanna switch to roux too. 5BLD has really shed light on its potential with his insane progress rate. Although its not because he uses roux he progressed so fast, he has undoubtedly highlighted that the advantages aren't blown out of the water by rediculous TPS CFOPers. Also moo-ing is fun


----------



## Czery (May 28, 2012)

Roux is wayyyy overrated. 

ZZ - C all the way.


----------



## RaresB (May 28, 2012)

i would be using CFOP


----------



## Georgeanderre (May 28, 2012)

Already use another method.


----------



## Ickathu (May 28, 2012)

emolover said:


> But don't worry, I am still for bigcubes and OH so I actually go both ways(giggity).


 
Me too. M slices are a pain when it comes to big cubes. OH is okay, but not great.


----------

