(To any FUCKER who says “rubix” I will personally stab your dog and RAPE your mother)
Edit: If the person who gilded this is used roux, take your shit back, I will rape your cubes and CFOP your mother

In the world of professional speed cubing, CFOP rains supreme. However, in a trinity of efficiency, ZZ and Petrus have the ability to alter the landscape of cubing permenantly. CFOP is used by Felix Zemdegs, one of the world’s greatest. CFOP is so commonly used, because it is a learnt as a gradual increase from the “official” beginner’s method, by gradually improving already known methods. This contrasts the other 2, which to most, appear to be unconventional and challenging. When a beginner quickly finishes a layer with CFOP, they can easily see the acheivement then and there. CFOP, or cross f2l, oll and pll, is by far the most researched method. This allows more efficient methods to be discovered. Furthermore, It translates easily to 4 x 4 and 5 x 5. This is likely due to the fact is does not require knowledge of the internal way the cube functions, no block building of Roux, or edge orientation with ZZ. Thus, although it is extremely algorithm dependent, it is easily manajed. First, a cuber solves the cross. This is almost the exact same as the beginner method, thus easy to learn. A common issue, amongst many cubers, is a focus on one colour, instead of pure efficiency. Furthermore, CFOP relies heavily on the inspection stage, with a cuber expected to think forward atleast 10 moves, during 15 seconds, an incredibly arduous task. After the cross, A cuber will insert edge-corner pairs into there areas in F2L. This is initially learnt intuatively, however, as one progresses, one must think of the necessary next akgorithm, whilst completing the initial one. After this one transfers to OLL, or orienting the top pieces. There are over 50 algorithms, with increasing learning often initially slowing, before enough practice has occured. Also, there are hundreds of further algorithms, if one wants to transition to a smoother pll, however, the recognition of which algorithm to use is of the upmost importance, as the incorrect one will end the solve. This overrealiance on algorithms found in CFOP contributes to the fact, in top cubers, most solve times are up to luck, although this is obviously an issue in other methods, simply a smaller one due to the flexibility. CFOP has a higher move count then the other strategies, which is why many believe that ZZ can change the game. ZZ uses an alien intuitive technique known as eolining. First, a cuber must orient every edge in the cube, whilst this is initially time consuming and move inefficient, it eventually gains extreme efficiency. At the same time, a cuber builds up a central line from the edge DB and DF. From here, the rest of the cube can essentially be completed with only U, L and R moves, rotationless. This is of course advantage for a multitude of reasons. Most cubers are quicker with these slices, as opposed to internal M moves, this also translates to OH extremely well. With F2L, a cuber must complete 10 different peices as opposed to 8, due to the LD and RD peices being incompleted. There is also significant switching between L and R moves, difficult for the beginner, although, often easy with enough practice. Finally, the users reaches the top layer. Given all edges are oriented, it gives many possibilies for efficiency, which CFOP somewhat lacks in easiness. These include COLL and EPLL which when combines (and with fewer cases if one wants total efficiency) makes ZZ A, essentially a 1LLL, wiith 493 cases, which is extremely doable. For this reason, I personally believe someone using ZZ with ZZa could transform the cubing landscape permenantly. However, ZZ does come with numerous disadvanteges. These include an extreme reliance for introspection, which is offputing for many cubers. The unintuitive EOLine which offputs the majority of beginners, albeit becoming natural and easy after a long time, and the L R switching, which is again unnatural.
Despite these flaws, I am completely on board with the possibilty of ZZ user with ZZa being able to beat Felix Zemdegs or anyone with CFOP, it is simply currently unpopular. Likely equally unpopular, Petrus. First, a cuber builds a 2x2x2 block in the cube. Then this is expanded to 2x2x3 block, this can be done with many different strats, but is somewhat intuitive. After this, a cuber orients the remaining edges, in a similar fashion to ZZ. After this F2L can be completed by only turning 2 sides, which is obviously extremely efficient and quick. In Pure Petrus, A cuber will create a 1x2x2 block which is expanded to 1x2x3 to finish F2L, when done with the efficient 2 side movement, the top 4 edges will orient automatically, this is due to the bulding of the 1x2x3 block necesitating full edge orientation, thus when it is completed, this necessity will be met. After this, unconventionally, the user will Permutating the Corners of the last layer, then orient them. Finally, the cuber will permutate the edges, which will require swift algorithms. It has the same advantage for the last layer as ZZ, given the orientation, to make 1LLL extremely viable. For the begginner, it is far more intuitive to block build, and requires less algorithms. The Petrus method also uses far fewer moves than CFOP, thus increasing efficiency. However, the high intuition levels comes with a huge disadvantage. Thinking is practically non concious at Proffesional Speedcubing for 3×3. Thus, unless it becomes more popular, and strategies are created, as like what happeneed in 2003, it will likely stay unused. Furthermore, in the Edge orientation stage, recognition of cases is a drawback to beginners, as is block building, thus will again stay unused. While not as favourable in my eyes as ZZ, I do see the benifits of Petrus, especially for a non algorithm heavy method for beginners, which in my oppion is where it should stay. COLL will become more common, and cubers will make it ubiquitious. COLL will be more advantagous in ZZ and Petrus, and that is the only chance for their rebirth. If they dont beat CFOP then, they never will.
Due to this, the most likely path is that elements of ZZ and Petrus will be incorporated into CFOP in certain cases, in which knowledge of those elements will be examples. For example, X cube, is born of Petrus, utilizing the block building, but during the cross element of freidrichs. Knowledge of this case, and far more importantly, the experience of how to quickly incorporate this edge pair in to a 2x2x2 block without affecting the cross, is the opening stage of Petrus. Furthermore, Petrus’ use of blocks is extremely prevelant in methods for larger cubes, like 4 x 4 and 5×5. One method of solving is to create blocks, akin to Petrus, and solve it almost identically. Whilst ZZ’s Edge orientation appears useless, in 4×4, the entire initial stage involves centre fixing, and then orienting the edges, akin to ZZ, knowledge of how to do this, and experience of it is helpful. ZZ also utilizes mainly U L and R moves, making it the ideal strategy for OH. Both methods have significantly lower move counts, and are often used for lowest move, in which CFOP is scarcely used.
Furthermore, ZBLL, originating from ZZ and Petrus, is being learnt by people across the board, and is likely going to lead to the next stage of world records, once it is universely learned.
Although CFOP reigns supreme, numerous smaller methods can be utilized, as mentioned above. Many methods involve orienting a permutating the top layer, whilst solving F2L. This includes the Winter and Summer variations.These were invented by Mats Valk, besides the winter, and are a subset of VLS. There are 432 algorithms to learn, including mirrors, which is a significant amount, however any method of improving world records is a superhuman method or luck. Given this, extreme methods are needed, and we are reaching a stage in which one must balance recognition and algorithms. Methods to improve recognition, such as some sort of quick flash card challenge which has hundreds of buttons and 0.1 seconds is necessary. This of course is almost impossible. However, is the speed gaming world, such methods are necessary, and given the prevalence of actions 1/30 of a second, it is possible, and to beat the battle of algs vs recognition, is the next step. CMLL, a method in Roux, is used by Feliks Zemdegs. CMLL has only 42 algorithms, and will always eb faster than COLL. However, in honesty, there are 2 strategies that will improve almost all cubers. Colour neutrality, and improving your look ahead. Most people start with a certain colour, and plan with that, as opposed to essentially colour blindness, looking for the most efficient solution. If one has colour neutrality, it will often reduce the moves by up to 3. This is more important than a simple 3 moves, due to the fact it will let you lookahead and plan 3 more moves during the F2L stage. Furthermore, If one practices blindfold cubing, the lookahead needed is immense, thus it would be useful for almost all, due to the fact ones planning happpens so quickly. Furthermore, 3×3 cubing is reaching a stage where in improvement is almost completely up to luck and chance. I would recommend that anyone looking to inovate a cubing feild dont start 2×2, the extremely luck based solution, or 3×3 which is so popular, it is practically impossible to control improvement. Rather I recommend improvent of other feilds, like OH, least moves, 4×4 and 5×5, which arent up to the miniscule improvement stage. However, in the feild of 3×3, there are so many conflicting strategies, its hard to remember the most basic and importants one. Practice transitioning from different moves. Practice look ahead, and finally practice algorithm recognition. And of coruse Zeroing. The most important algorithm. Remember to practice your zeroing daily. Zeroing is the most important moves. DO zerioing. Zeroing zeroing zeroing.