CFOP is my preferred method for speedcubing. Recently I thought of learning ZZ. Although recognition of bad edges was difficult, it made F2L a whole lot easier.

However I feel that the basic CFOP-based F2L is much more easier along with the initial EOLine step of ZZ instead of block-building. Removing bad edges cut down my CFOP F2L times in half by avoiding F/B moves.

Is there any term for the method that uses ZZ's EOLine and FOP of CFOP for the rest? Or should I just call it ZZ-CFOP hybrid?

  • $\begingroup$ The big advantage of EOLine -> F2L is having rotationless F2L after the EOLine, compared to CFOP's Cross (or ZZ's EOCross) to F2L transition. I have seen a few people use the same hybrid as you before, but I'm not sure what it's called. I'm also not really an expert of speedcubing besides some things I've read/learned over the years on the Cubers reddit. Perhaps someone there knows what it's called. The speedsolving 3x3x3 methods wiki might perhaps also hold some answers. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 22, 2017 at 10:55

1 Answer 1


I'm assuming the method you're talking about is:

  • EOCross
  • F2L
  • Any LS/LL approach

The answer to your question is that it's usually just called "EOCross", and is considered both a ZZ variant and a CFOP variant. More so the former than the latter. Although, most people don't call it "ZZ-EOCross" as would be the standard convention for a ZZ variant.

As for how good it is, for two-handed solving, it's seen nowadays as an improvement to standard ZZ but a worse version of CFOP. There's actually very little benefit to having EO solved and it doesn't outweigh the slowness of forcing EO, especially when you consider how restricted the options are for X-Crosses. Rotating in CFOP F2L really isn't that bad. You shouldn't be doing many F/B moves in CFOP F2L because you can fix that by rotating. And besides, there are actually plenty of cases where it's faster to change the EO of some edges. You'd be better off mastering CFOP F2L than trying to do a shortcut like EOCross.

  • $\begingroup$ After 4 years with CFOP, yes, I completely agree with you. $\endgroup$
    – Ébe Isaac
    Commented Sep 5, 2021 at 2:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.