CFOP, ZZ or Mehta

Which method

  • Total voters
    54
DiamondGolem12

DiamondGolem12

Regular
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
225
Location
Somewhere
(Inspired by this thread)

So I've been kinda bored of CFOP as it's basically the same every solve and I'd rather be more efficient than spam tps. I checked out Mehta, ZZ, and Roux and I've been thinking of switching to one of them. Not having a definitive method is kind of slowing down my progress and I haven't really improved in a few months.

Here are the main pros and cons that I can think of for each method.

CFOP:
Pros
  • Good lookahead
  • Spamming TPS
  • I'm already close to sub-15 with it
Cons
  • IMO I find it kind of boring
  • Not very efficient
  • Lots of rotations
  • Only a few LL options
ZZ:
Pros
  • I really like EOcross and all the theory that comes with it
  • Rotationless
  • Lots of options for LL
Cons
  • Still quite a lot of moves
  • Not as many videos and as much research on algs gone into it
Mehta:
Pros
  • Most efficient (I think correct me if I'm wrong)
  • No repeated steps
  • OS is a lot of algs but really good and you don't have to know all the algs as you can just do something else
  • Has the potential to be basically the best method
Cons
  • I suck at first block
  • Kinda weird fingertricks
  • Not too similar to CFOP

I'm not really considering roux as it is so different to CFOP so I'd basically have to start again, and I practice 4x4 and 5x5 which you can't really use roux for.

If it makes any difference, the other events I practice are squan, 2x2, 4x4 and 5x5.
 
Last edited:
DiamondGolem12 said:
(Inspired by this thread)

So I've been kinda bored of CFOP as it's basically the same every solve and I'd rather be more efficient than spam tps. I checked out Mehta, ZZ, and Roux and I've been thinking of switching to one of them. Not having a definitive method is kind of slowing down my progress and I haven't really improved in a few months.

Here are the main pros and cons that I can think of for each method.

CFOP:
Pros
  • Good lookahead
  • Spamming TPS
  • I'm already close to sub-15 with it
Cons
  • IMO I find it kind of boring
  • Not very efficient
  • Lots of rotations
  • Only a few LL options
ZZ:
Pros
  • I really like EOcross and all the theory that comes with it
  • Rotationless
  • Lots of options for LL
Cons
  • Still quite a lot of moves
  • Not as many videos and as much research on algs gone into it
Mehta:
Pros
  • Most efficient (I think correct me if I'm wrong)
  • No repeated steps
  • OS is a lot of algs but really good and you don't have to know all the algs as you can just do something else
  • Has the potential to be basically the best method
Cons
  • I suck at first block
  • Kinda weird fingertricks
  • Not too similar to CFOP

I'm not really considering roux as it is so different to CFOP so I'd basically have to start again, and I practice 4x4 and 5x5 which you can't really use roux for.

If it makes any difference, the other events I practice are squan, 2x2, 4x4 and 5x5.
Click to expand...
I‘d say to just try all of the methods and use them for a good bit, and decide.
 
DiamondGolem12 said:
(Inspired by this thread)

So I've been kinda bored of CFOP as it's basically the same every solve and I'd rather be more efficient than spam tps. I checked out Mehta, ZZ, and Roux and I've been thinking of switching to one of them. Not having a definitive method is kind of slowing down my progress and I haven't really improved in a few months.

Here are the main pros and cons that I can think of for each method.

CFOP:
Pros
  • Good lookahead
  • Spamming TPS
  • I'm already close to sub-15 with it
Cons
  • IMO I find it kind of boring
  • Not very efficient
  • Lots of rotations
  • Only a few LL options
ZZ:
Pros
  • I really like EOcross and all the theory that comes with it
  • Rotationless
  • Lots of options for LL
Cons
  • Still quite a lot of moves
  • Not as many videos and as much research on algs gone into it
Mehta:
Pros
  • Most efficient (I think correct me if I'm wrong)
  • No repeated steps
  • OS is a lot of algs but really good and you don't have to know all the algs as you can just do something else
  • Has the potential to be basically the best method
Cons
  • I suck at first block
  • Kinda weird fingertricks
  • Not too similar to CFOP

I'm not really considering roux as it is so different to CFOP so I'd basically have to start again, and I practice 4x4 and 5x5 which you can't really use roux for.

If it makes any difference, the other events I practice are squan, 2x2, 4x4 and 5x5.
Click to expand...
Experiment with all these methods and switch to the one you like. I'd say either ZZ or Mehta.
 
the dnf master said:
I don't consider ZZ with EOCross to be its own method. If you use ZZ with EOCross, ur basically using a variation of CFOP. So ultimately, ZZ should only be on the list if u use it traditionally with EOLine and blockbuilding.
Click to expand...

They are different methods. They have different steps and there are also a number of last layer options with EOCross that aren't possible with CFOP

Edit: Ninja'd (isn't that what all the cool kids say these days)
 
the dnf master said:
I don't consider ZZ with EOCross to be its own method. If you use ZZ with EOCross, ur basically using a variation of CFOP. So ultimately, ZZ should only be on the list if u use it traditionally with EOLine and blockbuilding.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree, for effectively all the reasons listed above. I'd like to add that eocross has always been a part of ZZ, and feels completely different to CFOP
 
EOCross is both ZZ and CFOP.
EOCrosses can naturally occur in CFOP. EOCross is also ZZ as you solve EO, solve F2L, then LL. Please stop arguing that it’s not. Otherwise CFOP people aren’t using CFOP if they do anything else like ZBLL or VLS for example.
 
DiamondGolem12 said:
They are different methods. They have different steps and there are also a number of last layer options with EOCross that aren't possible with CFOP

Edit: Ninja'd (isn't that what all the cool kids say these days)
Click to expand...
Last layer options don't mean much in this purpose. If it did then is using ZB its own method? No, it's still CFOP
ZF slow said:
Hard disagree, for effectively all the reasons listed above. I'd like to add that eocross has always been a part of ZZ, and feels completely different to CFOP
Click to expand...
With eocross, you change one thing in CFOP and that is adding edge orientation at the beginning. However you completely remove the aspect of blockbuilding in ZZ, which is what majority of the solve is with EOLine


Im not saying that EOCross is not ZZ at all, I just feel that it is more similar to CFOP than ZZ
 
the dnf master said:
With eocross, you change one thing in CFOP and that is adding edge orientation at the beginning. However you completely remove the aspect of blockbuilding in ZZ, which is what majority of the solve is with EOLine
Click to expand...

While yes, you are changing one property, you do end up changing a lot of the solve as a result. Cross is longer, requires different inspection and understanding of a different concept. F2L is rotationless and instead of RUFy gen it's RULD. Some pairs have different solutions, and if you're lucky you could get regripless F2L which is far rarer for cfop. As well as far more variants being open to you. It is very different
 
ZF slow said:
While yes, you are changing one property, you do end up changing a lot of the solve as a result. Cross is longer, requires different inspection and understanding of a different concept. F2L is rotationless and instead of RUFy gen it's RULD. Some pairs have different solutions, and if you're lucky you could get regripless F2L which is far rarer for cfop. As well as far more variants being open to you. It is very different
Click to expand...
However the concept of F2L is identical in both methods. EO is a step that makes the following steps easier, but they're the same steps nonetheless. It could be faster but it shouldn't get to qualify as a separate method. If it did, then shouldn't COLL or OLLCP get to as well? You're changing an alg to make the next step easier.

Also why did you give the haha reaction to my previous post?
 
the dnf master said:
However the concept of F2L is identical in both methods. EO is a step that makes the following steps easier, but they're the same steps nonetheless. It could be faster but it shouldn't get to qualify as a separate method. If it did, then shouldn't COLL or OLLCP get to as well? You're changing an alg to make the next step easier.
Click to expand...

Except the concept isn't identical. Sure, make pairs and solve layers. But ZZ does it explicitly rotationless where CFOP embraces rotations. ZZ and CFOP have different solutions to the same cases due to eo preservation. As well as aforementioned gen differences. They do solve the same things but they are different, conceptually.
 
zzoomer said:
are you even consistent with your own logic
Click to expand...
I am. I was just using those two alg sets as an example because it was relevant. Read the sentence afterwards. I said "If it did then is using ZB its own method? No, it's still CFOP ". Same thing here. COLL and OLLCP are not their own method. I never said that they contribute in this topic.

ZF slow said:
Except the concept isn't identical. Sure, make pairs and solve layers. But ZZ does it explicitly rotationless where CFOP embraces rotations. ZZ and CFOP have different solutions to the same cases due to eo preservation. As well as aforementioned gen differences. They do solve the same things but they are different, conceptually.
Click to expand...
But in the same way EOCross solves F2L pairs in the same way as CFOP. You don't do blockbuilding.
 
the dnf master said:
I am. I was just using those two alg sets as an example because it was relevant. Read the sentence afterwards. I said "If it did then is using ZB its own method? No, it's still CFOP ". Same thing here. COLL and OLLCP are not their own method. I never said that they contribute in this topic.
Click to expand...
Then why did you suggest COLL/OLLCP be its own method? It's absurd and doesn't prove anything. No, it's not relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Farisu Fazz
New 3x3 Farz Method: Mehta style, but more applicable to roux and CFOP users
Replies
11
Views
2,387
ruffleduck
ruffleduck
GRVigo
SpeedSolving Master V1.0 released! - A solver app for LBL, CFOP, Roux, Petrus, ZZ, CEOR (YruRU), Mehta, Nautilus and LEOR
Replies
0
Views
1,351
GRVigo
GRVigo
M
3x3 CFOP Example solve thread
11 12 13
Replies
253
Views
29,634
acrystal
acrystal
Waffles
  • Poll Poll
Is option select worth it?
Replies
12
Views
2,103
Deleted member 36445
D
D
CFOP-Breaker? Mehta method
9 10 11
Replies
209
Views
47,219
Devv
D
Back
Top