That send me down memory lane...

My favourite technique for solving the Rubiks Cube involved orienting the edges in the first step (resp. with a lot experience possibly on-the-fly). I believe it was called the ZZ method or something like that. It reduced the number possible 3rd layer combinations to a few hundred. On his blog, Friedrich mentions an upper limit of roughly 1200 combinations. Back then ZZ was not invented, yet. It's been a long time, I don't remember well, but I believe a naive upper limit is higher. Nevertheless, in contrast to Friedrich's method (today refered to as CFOP, as a sibling commenter points out) solving the third layer was possible in a single step instead of two. There was situations were the two-step algorithm is far more ergonomic than the single step one, so one wouldn't reasonably choose the latter. This further reduced the number of combinations. Ultimately, ZZ was a manageble amount of algorithms to memorize. Also, the solving process felt much more natural than the Friedrich Method. More like, how it is supposed to be.

For experienced cubers this method lead to a low average solving time. On the other hand, due to the complexity of the edge-orientation step, instinctively exploiting advantageous situations was much harder than with Friedrich. Friedrich often allows you to skip steps or merge steps together, i.e. looking ahead in the solving process and reacting to what you see. While that is possible with ZZ, too, the simplicity of Friedrich's method allows for a much more freestyle solving process if you master it. Hence, for masters of the Friedrich Method the solving process becomes more similiar to the Heise method (Edit: Previously, I mistakenly wrote Roux), which not really is a method at all, but rather a way of understanding the cube. In principle, that's equally possible with ZZ, too, but in reality it is likely too complex for humans to master it as well as Friedrich's method.

In effect, the ZZ method while arguably superior to the Friedrich method did not allow for state-the-art speed. The best cubers not only achieved lower records with Friedrich, but lower average times, too (we're talking here about a difference of a one digit number of seconds). The ZZ method nevertheless lead to more reliable worst case times. If looking ahead in Friedrich fails, the ZZ method shines due to its overall smaller average number of turns necessary to solve the cube.

(However, all this information is 10 years old memories, so please check for yourself, if at the top level that's still true today or true at all.)

Also, it was a lot of fun to learn the ZZ method. I can highly recommend doing so. Learning several hundred algorithms is less than it seams. It likely takes at least a year, though, and that is if you learn several new algorithms per day. One does not need to learn them all at once. One can always resort to a two-step 3rd layer approach if necessary. But, getting the 3rd layer in a single step felt so awsome! (I was not even halve way through all algorithms, when life dragged me to focus on other things.)

I should definitely give cubing another try someday. Last time I took a cube, I couldn't even remember the two-step algorithm necessary to solve the particular 3rd layer situation that came up. However, this time I would rather focus on mastering ZZ's first step, i.e. orienting all the edges, instead of focussing on memorizing all 3rd layer combinations.