An analysis of cubing methods and times...

[tseitsei]

Well quite obviously this Artic guy has some personal hatred towards roux method so debating with him will get us nowhere since he clearly can't look at things objectively in this matter...

 

[obelisk477]

What I don't get is that you (Artic) are constantly asking (in other places) for F2L algs that are rotationless and M-slice. I've seen you ask that question at least 15 times for random cases. Well if you like no rotation and M-slicing so much, why hate on Roux?

 

[Kirjava]

sure, they're better if that's how you want to define better

other people think better can mean other things

come on Artic, this is worse than the time you tried to scare people by implying that cubes were toxic and could kill us

 

[Ranzha]

Artic, you are in contention for the most hated person currently on the forums.

As someone who averages mid-12 with a history of using very move-inefficient algorithms (by choice) and mid-range tps, how would you compare my skills with that of a CFOP solver with the same times?

Your arguments cannot hold without operational definitions of efficiency, skill, and net worth. Trying to take merit from Roux users (or any cubers simply because of their method) is unacceptable.

 

[Petro Leum]

I think everything that had to be said about this topic has been told by page 3...

ZZ anyone?

I think the World just isn't ready for us yet

 

[Artic]

I think everything that had to be said about this topic has been told by page 3...



I think the World just isn't ready for us yet

No, they aren't. But I'm definitely a fan. ZZ will take over some day

And I'm not trying to take merits away from any cuber. All I wanted to point out is that all methods are not created equal, and it is silly for cubers to continue saying that. How can Petrus, Roux, ZZ, CFOP etc be exactly equal??, and why do people continue to insist that they are?? Is it because users of a method don't want to accept that their method might be inferior?

Pretty much all of us started with the beginners method. Is that method just as good as ZZ or Roux? Of course not, and yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.

 

[obelisk477]

yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.

The reason they're unwilling isn't because of presumptions of equality, but because no one is arrogant enough to say (except for you) that they know for sure which method is better. There just isn't enough data, and to claim that there is reveals an underlying ignorance of basic statistics, confidence intervals, sample sizes, etc.

 

[theROUXbiksCube]

No, they aren't. But I'm definitely a fan. ZZ will take over some day

And I'm not trying to take merits away from any cuber. All I wanted to point out is that all methods are not created equal, and it is silly for cubers to continue saying that. How can Petrus, Roux, ZZ, CFOP etc be exactly equal??, and why do people continue to insist that they are?? Is it because users of a method don't want to accept that their method might be inferior?

Pretty much all of us started with the beginners method. Is that method just as good as ZZ or Roux? Of course not, and yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.

Its the cuber, not the method, the big 4 are all equal in potential to one another, doesn't mean just because one person can or can't get sub10 with such method, its not on par with the others. People continue to insist that they are because they are.

Of course the beginners method is not as good as speedcubing method, why, it has more simplified steps than say CFOP, a derivative from it, combining first and second layers into F2L, leading to faster times because of the more complicated fast steps rather than the slower, really simplified LBL.

 

[Artic]

The reason they're unwilling isn't because of presumptions of equality, but because no one is arrogant enough to say (except for you) that they know for sure which method is better. There just isn't enough data, and to claim that there is reveals an underlying ignorance of basic statistics, confidence intervals, sample sizes, etc.

So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.

 

[Petro Leum]

So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.

the thing is that every cuber uses a method somehow differently, and with more experience, they start to develop tricks and adjustments to the "basic" method that help them achieve better times. I bet my ZZ is ALOT different from your ZZ, as well as Felks' CFOP isnt just standard CFOP anymore most of the times, and alot different to lets say Mats' CFOP.

also, several methods have several pros and cons. when you compared roux and cfop, you kinda left out the cons of roux...

it just doesnt make any sense to compare stuff like that. you can compare cubers, but not different aspects of them with another.

 

[tseitsei]

So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.

You are the only one ignorant in this thread.

I use CFOP and have used it for several years already but I have no problem admitting that "my" method is not necessarily the best.

Neither do I believe that all methods (or even the big four methods) have exactly the same potential.

I would rank them as follows (but this is only my personal opinion. So feel free to disagree...): petrus < zz < cfop < roux...
Obvously someone would place them to another order. And it is subjective after all. Someone with good lookahead might want to use different method than someone who can spam insane tps with simpler lookahead...

 

[obelisk477]

So there's isn't enough data to show that beginners method is inferior to CFOP??? And corner's first method is also at the same level as ZZ?? Wow, now that is ignorance.

Lol, straw man fallacy -- you're flailing pretty hard. You know I wasn't talking about comparing beginners to CFOP or corners first to ZZ. I was talking about comparing the 3 main methods, CFOP Roux and ZZ. Good try though. My point still stands

 

[BaMiao]

Funny how Arctic hates on Roux for not having success in the rankings but calls ZZ "the future of cubing". Maybe he should check the rankings again because that "evidence" points to ZZ being the worst of the three. Of course that doesn't actually say anything about the method- I just find the logical inconsistency amusing.

 

[lerenard]

Funny how Arctic hates on Roux for not having success in the rankings but calls ZZ "the future of cubing". Maybe he should check the rankings again because that "evidence" points to ZZ being the worst of the three. Of course that doesn't actually say anything about the method- I just find the logical inconsistency amusing.

Me too. Of all his posts, not just that one point.

 

[STOCKY7]

No, they aren't. But I'm definitely a fan. ZZ will take over some day

And I'm not trying to take merits away from any cuber. All I wanted to point out is that all methods are not created equal, and it is silly for cubers to continue saying that. How can Petrus, Roux, ZZ, CFOP etc be exactly equal??, and why do people continue to insist that they are?? Is it because users of a method don't want to accept that their method might be inferior?

Pretty much all of us started with the beginners method. Is that method just as good as ZZ or Roux? Of course not, and yet people are unwilling to make the same admission regarding ZZ, Roux and CFOP.

Tbh, I agree with Artic here, I can't see how all of the 4 main methods can be exactly equal in speed or potential or whatever. Maybe the difference is so small, it isn't too noticeable, but I mean surely there MUST be some difference between the methods.

 

[supercavitation]

Tbh, I agree with Artic here, I can't see how all of the 4 main methods can be exactly equal in speed or potential or whatever. Maybe the difference is so small, it isn't too noticeable, but I mean surely there MUST be some difference between the methods.

Someone addressed this earlier. Most people agree that the methods are not all equal, but most of us aren't arrogant enough to say that we know for a fact which is objectively the best.

 

[Artic]

Tbh, I agree with Artic here, I can't see how all of the 4 main methods can be exactly equal in speed or potential or whatever. Maybe the difference is so small, it isn't too noticeable, but I mean surely there MUST be some difference between the methods.

Thanks for your support! I honestly appreciate it. It's almost cult-ish the way some people stand behind a method. I understand that though. No one wants to be told that the method they've invested so much energy and time could possibly be inferior. But thanks again for your support!

Someone addressed this earlier. Most people agree that the methods are not all equal, but most of us aren't arrogant enough to say that we know for a fact which is objectively the best.

I never once made a complete, certain, undeniable claim regarding one method or another. All I said is that the evidence today currently points in a certain direction.

 

[BaMiao]

Someone addressed this earlier. Most people agree that the methods are not all equal, but most of us aren't arrogant enough to say that we know for a fact which is objectively the best.

Not only that, but you can't say that any one method can be called best for everyone. People have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[ottozing]

All I said is that the evidence today currently points in a certain direction.

And all I'm saying (as I'm sure others have too) is that the evidence is pointing that way because literally no one but Alex has taken Roux beyond high 8 second averages. Also quit trying to play psychologist and tell everyone that they just don't want to admit they're using an inferior method because that makes you look like a ****. The reason they don't agree with you is because they're able to see past the very very few criteria needed in your definition for a method to be better than another method. Don't even bother replying to this post if you're not going to acknowledge and respond to everything in it.

 

[Artic]

And all I'm saying (as I'm sure others have too) is that the evidence is pointing that way because literally no one but Alex has taken Roux beyond high 8 second averages. Also quit trying to play psychologist and tell everyone that they just don't want to admit they're using an inferior method because that makes you look like a ****. The reason they don't agree with you is because they're able to see past the very very few criteria needed in your definition for a method to be better than another method. Don't even bother replying to this post if you're not going to acknowledge and respond to everything in it.

Insult. The last resort of the ignorant and the intolerant. I expected better from you.