CFOP, ZZ or Mehta

[the dnf master]

Then why did you suggest COLL/OLLCP be its own method? It's absurd and doesn't prove anything. No, it's not relevant.

It is relevant. They're similar in that you do something different to make the following step easier. Also I didn't suggest that they be their own method genuinely. It was just in relation to EOCross.
Maybe it is more similar to ZZ, but it mixes CFOP concepts with it and that is something to be noticed, because it could simply be defined as a variation of both of them. If started doing EO at the beginning of my solves, i would still be using CFOP.

 

[ruffleduck]

It is relevant. They're similar in that you do something different to make the following step easier.

Ya know what, let's just call every method CFOP. After all, they all solve the cube, right?

 

[the dnf master]

you're being difficult now. CFOP and ZZ with EOCross use the same steps in F2L. And I never even said that EOCross is CFOP -- it's not. But they are similar enough that using EOCross is not a separate method. And the same can be said about it being similar to ZZ.

 

[ruffleduck]

you're being difficult now. CFOP and ZZ with EOCross use the same steps in F2L. And I never even said that EOCross is CFOP -- it's not. But they are similar enough that using EOCross is not a separate method. And the same can be said about it being similar to ZZ.

Just the fact that you have to solve EO at the beginning of the solve is sufficient to make EOcross more similar to ZZ than CFOP. With CFOP you solve EO throughout the solve, with any variant of ZZ you solve all upfront.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

how come every thread turn into a war zone nowadays²

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

how come every thread turn into a war zone nowadays²

What do you mean. I disagree with you. That is incorrect where's your proof?!?

jk

 

[the dnf master]

Someone revive the cubing argument thread

 

[OreKehStrah]

It is relevant. They're similar in that you do something different to make the following step easier. Also I didn't suggest that they be their own method genuinely. It was just in relation to EOCross.
Maybe it is more similar to ZZ, but it mixes CFOP concepts with it and that is something to be noticed, because it could simply be defined as a variation of both of them. If started doing EO at the beginning of my solves, i would still be using CFOP.

Even if you use "Pure" EOLine ZZ, you still will have EOCross happen naturally from time to time, in which case you should just solve the pairs normally like a normal EOCross solve, thus EOCross is also a subset of doing EOLine since it's a possible cube state after the line is solved. Furthermore, even when doing blockbuilding for F2L, you will very often solve a square, then do a pair to complete the block, so solving pairs isn't anything unique to CFOP. It's something OG line users still did. EOCross is 100% ZZ. Methods change over time. Sure ZZ started with line, and now the good people use cross. It's that simple.

 

[the dnf master]

Even if you use "Pure" EOLine ZZ, you still will have EOCross happen naturally from time to time, in which case you should just solve the pairs normally like a normal EOCross solve, thus EOCross is also a subset of doing EOLine since it's a possible cube state after the line is solved. Furthermore, even when doing blockbuilding for F2L, you will very often solve a square, then do a pair to complete the block, so solving pairs isn't anything unique to CFOP. It's something OG line users still did. EOCross is 100% ZZ. Methods change over time. Sure ZZ started with line, and now the good people use cross. It's that simple.

I guess you're right

 

[LBr]

not another one of these threads...

 

[Deleted member 36445]

not another one of these threads...

I guess you're right

right when my sd card popcorn run out

 

[Waffles]

isn't there an argument thread now

 

[PapaSmurf]

 

[JTcuberanger]

(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.

I would urge you to give Roux another look, as it is rotationless like ZZ, but has a lower move count as a bonus. I find it simpler because it has no orientation-preamble before getting to block-pairings. And it feels more freeform than CFOP.
Bottom line is, as many have recommended, to spend a bit more time with each method and figure out which one resonates with you better. Best of luck.

 

[StrategySam]

I would definity use ZZ if I didn't know roux existed.

 

[Waffles]

The one problem with Roux (and CFOP but everyone already knows it) is that it’s getting overexploited. It hasn’t been completely run out yet (like CFOP which is at the stage that it gets boring and repetitive) but maybe in about 2 years. Roux hasn’t reached its peak yet, like ZZ, but unlike ZZ it has been used for a good 10 years.

Another thing is, Roux just doesn’t suit everyone. I’m not saying it’s a bad method, I’m just bad at slice turns and blockbuilding. For example, I use a 18 move RUFD gen Z Perm because I’m bad at slice turns, I’m okay at H Perm but try avoid it at all costs, and I use ZZ F2L, not blockbuilding f2l pairs.

Methods like Mehta and LEOR that aren’t that popular still have potential for improvement. ZZ has been experimented with a bit, less than both Roux and CFOP, but more than new methods like Mehta.

Obviously some people actually use methods like CF, LEOR and Petrus (which aren’t very well used, Petrus has definitely been used, but I don’t think it’s been worn out yet, like Roux.) and at some point, Roux will start losing popularity. It might be in 17 years, but it will be in the same position as CFOP at some point in time. It will happen to other methods as well, just because we are humans and we get bored, and lose interest in methods.

Again, personally I think Roux is the method that can go the furthest, and I don’t hate the method. I use CFOP for 2 handed and ZZ for one handed because I have tried and saw what I liked about the method and how I could use it, and to what extent I could get good times for. I don’t practise OH that often, so I would consider CFOP my main method.

To finish it off (whoops I went a little overboard writing this, it’s been 17 minutes), any of these are good, but you should think about what you really want, and whether you really want to switch.

Roux - best ergonomics for people decent at M moves and best move count
ZZ - fluid method, really good ergonomics and lots of choices
Mehta - most potential, high tps
CFOP - used to it, easiest to improve with.

It’s just my opinion, please don’t take this personally, and if you just see this bottom bit, tl;dr

 

[Cubing Forever]

I would urge you to give Roux another look, as it is rotationless like ZZ, but has a lower move count as a bonus. I find it simpler because it has no orientation-preamble before getting to block-pairings. And it feels more freeform than CFOP.

The problem with Roux, as @Waffles said is it's not for everyone. The blockbuilding and LSE can confuse people. Also, improving with Roux could be hard for some people since it's so intuitive.

 

[StrategySam]

Doesn't mehta also use block build tho or I am confused with a different method?

 

[the dnf master]

The problem with Roux, as @Waffles said is it's not for everyone. The blockbuilding and LSE can confuse people. Also, improving with Roux could be hard for some people since it's so intuitive.

I sort of disagree, because intuitive is only hard in the beginning. All you have to do is get familiar with blockbuilding, which is pretty similar to getting experience with the cross as well as EO for other methods. LSE is pretty easy tho

 

[Sub1Hour]

I saw the huge text blocks in the last 20-ish posts and decided it wasn't worth laughing at (yet)

My vote goes to ZZ. It's less vanilla than CFOP, kind of like cookies and cream. use ZZ for fun and learned it just to deepen my understanding of EO for F2L and Edge Control. ZZ isn't as fast as CFOP, but I can certainly see it becoming the method of the future, especially with stuff like ZZCT. It's just a bit more interesting than CFOP, so I would probably say that ZZ is better purely from an enjoyment standpoint.