OH Method Debate

Best OH Method

  • CFOP

    Votes: 18 19.4%

  • ZZ

    Votes: 9 9.7%

  • Petrus

    Votes: 4 4.3%

  • Roux

    Votes: 46 49.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.2%

  • YruRu

    Votes: 9 9.7%

  • Hawaiian Kociemba

    Votes: 4 4.3%

  • FreeFOP

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • loer

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Total voters
    93
I'm A Cuber said:
But you can plan cp in inspection...
Click to expand...
when did i say you couldnt?
ProStar said:
Your own words: "I can tell it's bad from the description"



RUru can be done fast, as long as they don't alternate that much. EO isn't as hard as ZZ EO, similar to how doing EO in Roux isn't bad because of how much easier is.
Click to expand...
yes it is because you have to recognise it instantly, whereas in zz eo you have 15 seconds to plan eo, roux eo there are 0 blindspots and is very easily predicted in cmll as cmll is an algorithm
 
ep2 said:
Why is it important to say that a method you don't use isn't as good as one you do use? With speed cubing, there's two objectives, improve your own time and/or be faster than others. Getting people to use the method you believe is faster, which they don't agree with, seems counter productive. If people want to spend time on other methods, just let them. The only reason I think someone might argue against it, is if they're afraid it might end up being faster and they'll have wasted time themselves on an inferior method.
Click to expand...

I think Roux is better for OH than CFOP. I've said that. I'm arguing against Muk's stupidity, not whether Roux is better. I don't have proof that Roux is better, which is why it's simply my opinion and I don't state it as fact.
 
mukerflap said:
whereas in zz eo you have 15 seconds to plan eo, roux eo there are 0 blindspots and is very easily predicted in cmll as cmll is an algorithm
Click to expand...

you don't use 15 seconds to plan EO, and lookahead is made easier in OH. Roux EO has blind spots, I'd like you to scramble a cube, look at the U face only, and tell me what the DF and DB edges are.
 
Sub1Hour said:
I dont care if quotes can sum it up better then you can. Why write an essay when you can just plagarise one from someone with the same viewpoint as you? I mean they can sum it up better than you can. The 1 line you gave does not hold enough evidence to disprove the method. You are totally ignoring that 2GLL is excellent along with ergonomics being much better then roux because it does not require table abuse to achieve excellent TPS.
Click to expand...
how on earth do you consider it not requiring table abuse to be a valid argument
 
ProStar said:
you don't use 15 seconds to plan EO, and lookahead is made easier in OH. Roux EO has blind spots, I'd like you to scramble a cube, look at the U face only, and tell me what the DF and DB edges are.
Click to expand...
EO is always even. You can count the edges on the U layer, and if the DF sticker is White/yellow, its misoriented. therefore there are no blindspots because its so easy to know exactly of the DB edge is oriented or not
Sub1Hour said:
Hmm yes, let me see through the cube to the DB slot. Or I could even use a mirror under the cube to take a peek at what piece that is
Click to expand...
 
mukerflap said:
EO is always even. You can count the edges on the U layer, and if the DF sticker is White/yellow, its misoriented. therefore there are no blindspots because its so easy to know exactly of the DB edge is oriented or not
Click to expand...
Ok so you never ever have to know what the DB edge is during FB or SB, makes perfect sense to me.
 
Sub1Hour said:
For EO you don't need to know what it is, but for FB and SB you do. CFOP has 0 blind spots after 1st pair if you insert into RB or LB, That portion of the solve can be 1 looked by a lot of cubers so CFOP essentially has no blind spots
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of lookahead before, and you literally plan FB and a part of sb in inspection
 
mukerflap said:
when did i say you couldnt?

yes it is because you have to recognise it instantly, whereas in zz eo you have 15 seconds to plan eo, roux eo there are 0 blindspots and is very easily predicted in cmll as cmll is an algorithm
Click to expand...
If Roux doesn't have blind spots during EO then YRuru doesn't have them either
mukerflap said:
the quotes sum it up better than i can. and i did give my own words

yruru sucks because you cant plan EO in inspection, the movecount isnt much better than cfop, wide u moves arent good
Click to expand...
There are 2.57 Uw Moves on Average on the last 21 example solves with YRuru. Uw moves suck but 3 per solve doesn't make YRuru thrash.
 
mukerflap said:
Have you ever heard of lookahead before
Click to expand...
Yes, In fact I have. I find it much easier to lookahead to pieces that are visible throughout 3/4 of the solve. Roux has blind spots as well as CFOP, but its much easier to mitigate when the blind spot has been eliminated during the first 1-2 seconds instead of during the entire solve
 
fun at the joy said:
If Roux doesn't have blind spots during EO then YRuru doesn't have them either

There are 2.57 Uw Moves on Average on the last 21 example solves with YRuru. Uw moves suck but 3 per solve doesn't make YRuru thrash.
Click to expand...
no because roux EO is different from yruru eo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roux
  • Poll Poll
Cubing method debate.
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2,893
KubikPanda
KubikPanda
S
Quantitative Method Analysis
Replies
16
Views
3,523
Silky
S
Christopher Mowla
Is the "Yau Method" Actually the "Jameson Method"? (Debate)
2
Replies
39
Views
6,760
mookiemu
M
S
  • Poll Poll
3 Blind Method Debate Thread
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8,783
Silky
S
D
The method debate thread
34 35 36
Replies
718
Views
83,940
Cubingmadness123
C
Back
Top