Petrus

[ArbishAli]

What if they are valid arguments? I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad.

Ok all the arguments are valid . Let's end it.

 

[PetrusQuber]

The two people who voted no both had less than 40 messages lol, and aren’t active

 

[Nir1213]

What if they are valid arguments? I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad.

They can be valid arguments, no problem. You just gotta counteract them with one of Petrus' strengths. There is not a single method that is perfect, except the memorize-all-quintillion-cases-and-algs method.
But that method is impossible anyway. Every method has its ups and downs. For example, Someone points out that petrus has a weakness, which it probably has, and says that CFOP is better. But that doesnt mean instantly its better. CFOP has a weakness, for example like it has long algs in oll and pll and has alot of cases. You get my point.

 

[Hassan Khanani]

The two people who voted no both had less than 40 messages lol, and aren’t active

I do read the forums quite often, I just don't really post much. I do think petrus can get decent times (sub 8 is definitely possible), but I think it is not as good as other methods because of the EO step being in the middle of the solve. To me it does not seem worthwhile to have to recognize and solve EO and only make the last two pairs + LL slightly better, although I may be wrong. Last two pairs without EO can be done very quickly and with no pauses.

 

[Username: Username:]

I do read the forums quite often, I just don't really post much. I do think petrus can get decent times (sub 8 is definitely possible), but I think it is not as good as other methods because of the EO step being in the middle of the solve. To me it does not seem worthwhile to have to recognize and solve EO and only make the last two pairs + LL slightly better, although I may be wrong. Last two pairs without EO can be done very quickly and with no pauses.

EO in the middle is not that bad, you can execute and recognize EO really fast, also, look at LEOR.

 

[mukerflap]

@Owen Morrison is reacting with eyes up to your posts because you guys are being very immature and making pointless posts that took no thought. Please be professional and add something of value to the current discussion. This is a forum, not a chat room, and spam posts like the ones in this thread are against the rules. Also....

This is really rude, @Owen Morrison knows perfectly well how to read. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.

you always come to ruin the fun

EO in the middle is not that bad, you can execute and recognize EO really fast, also, look at LEOR.

leor only works if you plan FBEO which is hard

 

[Nir1213]

you always come to ruin the fun

no he doesnt lmao i got angry for no reason and thats where i messed up

 

[NeoBridgeburn]

I feel like all method disscussion threads I've read (I've read probably 3, I'm not really active) quickly become ones where 80% of people are diametrically opposed to anything @Owen Morrison. I mean. I'm not saying this thread is too or anything...

 

[Nir1213]

I feel like all method disscussion threads I've read (I've read probably 3, I'm not really active) quickly become ones where 80% of people are diametrically opposed to anything @Owen Morrison. I mean. I'm not saying this thread is too or anything...

its like annoying when owen always react eyes up but i got over it anyway
to him 80% of all are "dumb"

 

[Deleted member 51471]

Petrus isn't bad. It's one of the best methods. It's just not as good as the big 3.

 

[ArbishAli]

Petrus isn't bad. It's one of the best methods. It's just not as good as the big 3.

ZZ isn't bad. It is amazing.

 

[moh_33]

well to me any method isn't bad, it usually comes to personal preference after all.
for some examples i learned and can execute all the big 4 methods and all of the methods has their own ups and downs.


CFOP being the most popular, has some cons like its reliance on INSPECTION time and the need to learn algs for the LL step.

Roux being picked up by a lot of cubers also have cons, such as intuitive blockbuilding may be confusing to beginners and the use of M slice that a lot of cubers tend to not use.

ZZ being one of the big 3 does have some cons such as Full EO may be hard for cubers to pick up and F or B moves are more restricted.

Petrus being one of the big 4 has cons as well, such as intuitive blockbuilding like Roux, and some EO in the middle that might be a little confusing for beginners.


As i said, it all comes down to personal preference so some May argue with the things i said about the Big 4.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

I did propose a petrus-like 4x4 method in the thread earlier. Hope it's halfway decent.

 

[PetrusQuber]

well to me any method isn't bad, it usually comes to personal preference after all.
for some examples i learned and can execute all the big 4 methods and all of the methods has their own ups and downs.


CFOP being the most popular, has some cons like its reliance on INSPECTION time and the need to learn algs for the LL step.

Roux being picked up by a lot of cubers also have cons, such as intuitive blockbuilding may be confusing to beginners and the use of M slice that a lot of cubers tend to not use.

ZZ being one of the big 3 does have some cons such as Full EO may be hard for cubers to pick up and F or B moves are more restricted.

Petrus being one of the big 4 has cons as well, such as intuitive blockbuilding like Roux, and some EO in the middle that might be a little confusing for beginners.


As i said, it all comes down to personal preference so some May argue with the things i said about the Big 4.

Well methods can be bad
But reasonable methods, so far have not been totally proven to be so

 

[tx789]

well to me any method isn't bad, it usually comes to personal preference after all.
for some examples i learned and can execute all the big 4 methods and all of the methods has their own ups and downs.


CFOP being the most popular, has some cons like its reliance on INSPECTION time and the need to learn algs for the LL step.

Roux being picked up by a lot of cubers also have cons, such as intuitive blockbuilding may be confusing to beginners and the use of M slice that a lot of cubers tend to not use.

ZZ being one of the big 3 does have some cons such as Full EO may be hard for cubers to pick up and F or B moves are more restricted.

Petrus being one of the big 4 has cons as well, such as intuitive blockbuilding like Roux, and some EO in the middle that might be a little confusing for beginners.


As i said, it all comes down to personal preference so some May argue with the things i said about the Big 4.

How is being reliant on inspection bad and unique to cfop?
Why is more algs bad? Just because it takes effort to learn? Algs get easier to learn as you learn more. Algorithmic steps are faster anyway and intuative steps should feel algorithmic eventually anyway.

Block building is a lot harder to understand at first true. M slices aren't that bad and is potentially the worse slice after S and E.

EO is hard to understand at first and how is F and B move restrictions a con isn't that what people love about ZZ. Is the RUL turning.

CFOP and Roux are good.


Now for ZZ does solving eo save more time later in the solve than is added at the start. With 2020 hardware it isn't better.

Petrus is a bad method for speedsolving. It was good one old bad hardware where saving moves was the best thing you could do. The 223 block isn't that good for speedsolving.

 

[TheSlykrCubr]

How is being reliant on inspection bad and unique to cfop?
Why is more algs bad? Just because it takes effort to learn? Algs get easier to learn as you learn more. Algorithmic steps are faster anyway and intuative steps should feel algorithmic eventually anyway.

Block building is a lot harder to understand at first true. M slices aren't that bad and is potentially the worse slice after S and E.

EO is hard to understand at first and how is F and B move restrictions a con isn't that what people love about ZZ. Is the RUL turning.

CFOP and Roux are good.


Now for ZZ does solving eo save more time later in the solve than is added at the start. With 2020 hardware it isn't better.

Petrus is a bad method for speedsolving. It was good one old bad hardware where saving moves was the best thing you could do. The 223 block isn't that good for speedsolving.

Having lots of algs means having more to optimise for speedsolving.

 

[moh_33]

How is being reliant on inspection bad and unique to cfop?
Why is more algs bad? Just because it takes effort to learn? Algs get easier to learn as you learn more. Algorithmic steps are faster anyway and intuative steps should feel algorithmic eventually anyway.

Block building is a lot harder to understand at first true. M slices aren't that bad and is potentially the worse slice after S and E.

EO is hard to understand at first and how is F and B move restrictions a con isn't that what people love about ZZ. Is the RUL turning.

CFOP and Roux are good.


Now for ZZ does solving eo save more time later in the solve than is added at the start. With 2020 hardware it isn't better.

Petrus is a bad method for speedsolving. It was good one old bad hardware where saving moves was the best thing you could do. The 223 block isn't that good for speedsolving.

Having lots of algs means having more to optimise for speedsolving.

Well i did tell you that it's only my personal opinion, but i guess you are right

although i should have pointed some things that i do when i cube, i usually do Sledgehammers and hedgslammers instead of normal F2L inserts so i have a habit on using the F and B moves and i guess i should do RUL moves more :confused: :? (im kinda weird am i).

and for the algorithm count situation, i do more intuitive solves so i like Roux and Petrus over ZZ and CFOP but eh everybody have their opinions and i have NO rights to change your opinions .


i have no intention to make a commotion on topic of the big 4 methods, and i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings.

 

[Owen Morrison]

CFOP being the most popular, has some cons like its reliance on INSPECTION time and the need to learn algs for the LL step.

How does CFOP have more reliance on inspection than ZZ? And imo CFOP has less inspection reliance than Roux or Petrus.

But anyway let's not start another stupid method argument here

 

[moh_33]

How does CFOP have more reliance on inspection than ZZ? And imo CFOP has less inspection reliance than Roux or Petrus.

But anyway let's not start another stupid method argument here

Well i guess ZZ have more reliance than CFOP XD

i have no intention to make a commotion on topic of the big 4 methods, and i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings.

Well as i said i don't want a method argument so lets call it a Truce?

 

[tx789]

Having lots of algs means having more to optimise for speedsolving.

Algs are easier to optimise. If you want to be fast Roux and CFOP have a lot to optimise. Turning is a big one that applies to all events.




Also is big four even auccurate anymore. To be honest it is big two these says. Petrus is used by almost no one and ZZ popularity has wanned since Phil Yu's peak in 2011-2013.