Is this UWR? Sub-8 with Waterman

[DuckubingCuber347]

In these first 2 messages, you insist that the scramble starts with these 3 moves, but then you later contradict yourself by giving a completely different scramble in this later post.

I believe the recon he gave you was for his second (or possibly first if the other was indeed fake) sub-8.

 

[BenChristman1]

I believe the recon he gave you was for his second (or possibly first if the other was indeed fake) sub-8.

No, the reconstruction that he gave me is in the description of the 7.84 recon video, and it’s different from the one in the 7.98 video.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

No, the reconstruction that he gave me is in the description of the 7.84 recon video, and it’s different from the one in the 7.98 video.

Oops... I do remember that recon though + the three move S U2 S'. Very suspicious. (I also think Lukas has made more posts than even hellocubers did in one week. What's sad is that they're all just damaging him and contradicting truth/himself.

 

[GodCubing]

The fact of the matter is that it is not a great method, and there are many methods that are much better.

How are you such an expert. Waterman averaged sub 17 when the official WR was 22 seconds

 

[BenChristman1]

How are you such an expert. Waterman averaged sub 17 when the official WR was 22 seconds

Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)

1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
3. I don’t need to be an expert on Waterman to say that it’s not as good as other methods. The movecount is worse than Roux, the ergonomics are worse than CFOP, Roux, and ZZ, and corners-first methods have been proven to be worse than the methods that most speedsolvers use today.
4. At least be grammatically correct if you’re going to try to sway my opinion.

 

[LukasCubes]

In these first 2 messages, you insist that the scramble starts with these 3 moves, but then you later contradict yourself by giving a completely different scramble in this later post.




Also, it’s not very smart or tactful of you to call the people who doubt the method idiots. The fact of the matter is that it is not a great method, and there are many methods that are much better. But, if you’re going to debate with somebody about anything, calling them names and being rude isn’t going to get them to change their mind or respect your opinion.

Another way to make people respect and believe you is to put more effort into your posts to make sure that they look like they weren’t thrown together in 10 seconds, along with making sure that you’re not offending anybody in the process, because like I said, that’s not going to help you at all.

i lost the scramble and i went to rubiks-cube-solver.com to give the solution to the scramble and I write the reverse of that (I remember the entire solution). I'm not trying to offend anyone tho. Sorry if I am.

I believe the recon he gave you was for his second (or possibly first if the other was indeed fake) sub-8.

That recon was the 1st scramble. The 2nd scramble isnt at alg.cubing.net yet but it will be later.

No, the reconstruction that he gave me is in the description of the 7.84 recon video, and it’s different from the one in the 7.98 video.

correct

Oops... I do remember that recon though + the three move S U2 S'. Very suspicious. (I also think Lukas has made more posts than even hellocubers did in one week. What's sad is that they're all just damaging him and contradicting truth/himself.

How are you such an expert. Waterman averaged sub 17 when the official WR was 22 seconds

1 word: Fingertricks

Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)

1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
3. I don’t need to be an expert on Waterman to say that it’s not as good as other methods. The movecount is worse than Roux, the ergonomics are worse than CFOP, Roux, and ZZ, and corners-first methods have been proven to be worse than the methods that most speedsolvers use today.
4. At least be grammatically correct if you’re going to try to sway my opinion.

Although I have a VERY different opinion, I cannot stop you from from changing opinions

 

[GodCubing]

Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)

1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
3. I don’t need to be an expert on Waterman to say that it’s not as good as other methods. The movecount is worse than Roux, the ergonomics are worse than CFOP, Roux, and ZZ, and corners-first methods have been proven to be worse than the methods that most speedsolvers use today.
4. At least be grammatically correct if you’re going to try to sway my opinion.

There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.

 

[kubesolver]

Alright, let’s list all the things wrong with this post (quite a few for such a short, effortless post)

1. There was no “official” world record because the WCA didn’t exist.
2. If a single person is decent with a method, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good method. Better methods just hadn’t been developed yet.
3. I don’t need to be an expert on Waterman to say that it’s not as good as other methods. The movecount is worse than Roux, the ergonomics are worse than CFOP, Roux, and ZZ, and corners-first methods have been proven to be worse than the methods that most speedsolvers use today.
4. At least be grammatically correct if you’re going to try to sway my opinion.

I am confused
2. But that's exactly what's needed to prove the method is good. The inverse implication is not true.
3. But Roux is corners first method.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.

Before telling people to do more research make sure you do yours first. There are solves even before the World Championships that were faster than the first "official" world record. If you read blogs about the first world championships you see that the competitors were given absolutely trash cubes that affected there times. Not many top solvers were to impressed with it. http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cubewrld.html (Were you can read it). While Ben didn't make the best argument but it's kind of hard to deny that Waterman has bad ergonomics. It's not the worst out there but that doesn't mean that it is good.
You don't need to main a method to know it's not good. That's one of the reasons so few people main Waterman.

 

[the dnf master]

There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.

i have absolutely no idea why people are having an argument about waterman being competitively viable as a speedsolving method. the wiki itself states that little attention has been paid to waterman, and not many people use it. You say that the first world record was set using a corners first method. That's great, but the method discussion is about now, not the past. Right now, waterman is simply worse than the other popular methods.
It's a good method, but relative to CFOP, Roux, ZZ etc, it's is worse

 

[BenChristman1]

There was an official world record and it is recognized that that was the world record at the time. Actually it does, and Waterman has movecount lower than roux and the ergo is not too awful. try a solve with it and you will find that it is not to bad for ergo. I think you need to actually check the wiki before saying it has worse movecount than roux.

1. Even though the WCA recognizes it, it doesn’t mean that they should. The WCA Regulations were not followed, therefore it should not be a result in the WCA database.
2. No, just no.
3. The Wiki says that Roux has an average movecount of 48. It doesn’t specify which metric, but I am going to assume that it is HTM, because it is very easy to get lower than that using STM. Waterman has an average movecount of 50+ HTM, which means that Roux does have a better movecount.

As far as the ergonomics go, Roux is RrUM gen for the entire solve after FB (which is only about 8 moves from my experience, although the Wiki doesn’t say). How is a method that has random cube rotations in the middle of it better than a method that has no rotations and only has moves along 2 axes?

I am confused
2. But that's exactly what's needed to prove the method is good. The inverse implication is not true.
3. But Roux is corners first method.

I think that just because one person is good with a method, that doesn’t mean that everyone is or can be.

You could call CFCE a corners-first method if that’s your definition. Approximately the same number of pieces are solved before solving the corners.

(After all the arguing I’m doing for Roux, maybe I should switch…)

 

[LukasCubes]

im just glad im not in this argument lol

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

im just glad im not in this argument lol

Yeah but I think you need to hire a better lawyer to defend Waterman.

 

[LukasCubes]

Yeah but I think you need to hire a better lawyer to defend Waterman.

I probably do lol

 

[GodCubing]

3. The Wiki says that Roux has an average movecount of 48. It doesn’t specify which metric, but I am going to assume that it is HTM, because it is very easy to get lower than that using STM. Waterman has an average movecount of 50+ HTM, which means that Roux does have a better movecount.

Say what you want about the past world record, and your argument is circular for the second point. the 3rd point is where you are dead wrong. You assumed that 48 is HTM. It is not. Roux averages 48 moves STM and Waterman averages 40-45 moves. Some rouxers do believe that roux's movecount could be lowered to 46 for advanced solvers, but either way Waterman is less moves. Ergo-wise, you might be right, but I actually enjoy waterman ergo.
As for why your argument is circular on point 2... You said that just because one person is fast with a method does not make it good. Then how do you justify a new method ermerging. I think that every method has to start somewhere, and I also think it only takes one person to prove it is viable. If only one person is fast with it then it isn't a good method and no one should use it, so therefore no one uses it and it is a bad method because no one uses it and it never gets fast so it must be a bad method because no one gave it a chance.

Also, I'm not sure who said this, but someone said getting a PB 1/2 your average is unlikely, but I disagree. I know someone who averages 12-13 and has a 6 as a pb. There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.

I probably do lol

you definitely do. I suck at this

 

[CubeRed]

There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.

Not to be a part of the argument, but I have a PB single of 11 and average 19.

 

[LukasCubes]

Also, I'm not sure who said this, but someone said getting a PB 1/2 your average is unlikely, but I disagree. I know someone who averages 12-13 and has a 6 as a pb. There are plenty of people who have very fast PBs compared to their averages. Think about top solvers, they average sub 6 on a good day and some of them have sub 3 PBs so that is 1/2 their average. A silly point, but I had to refute it nonetheless.

i believe you even less now. the chances of you getting 2 sub-8 singles with waterman, which doesn't have that good of lookahead, plus you average more than double that, the likelihood of you getting 2 in this span of time is very low.

Xu Ruihang got a 2.68 dont he average like 6-7?

Also I dropped my averages down to about 15. My TPS got a little higher and my Waterman 1st layer got a little more effieient. I am learning new algs too to lower the movecount. I also started pausing less.

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Xu Ruihang got a 2.68 do not he average like 6-7?

Also I dropped my averages down to about 15. My TPS got a little higher and my Waterman 1st layer got a little more effieient. I am learning new algs too to lower the movecount. I also started pausing less.

He averages low-6 high-5 at home (Max Park on the other hand is sub-6 global. I'm not sure about Tymon/Matty/Ruihang). I think the whole PB single thing is a pretty weak argument. Yusheng Du got a 3.47 when he averaged 7 seconds and he got a 9 second average that round. The current skewb single holder averaged 6 second when he got the WR.

 

[LukasCubes]

He averages low-6 high-5 at home (Max Park on the other hand is sub-6 global. I'm not sure about Tymon/Matty/Ruihang). I think the whole PB single thing is a pretty weak argument. Yusheng Du got a 3.47 when he averaged 7 seconds and he got a 9 second average that round. The current skewb single holder averaged 6 second when he got the WR.

theres my point, I got lucky, no fu- i mean fakes

 

[voidrx]

Xu Ruihang got a 2.68 dont he average like 6-7?

Also I dropped my averages down to about 15. My TPS got a little higher and my Waterman 1st layer got a little more effieient. I am learning new algs too to lower the movecount. I also started pausing less.

He avgs 5-6. At that level tho it kind of matters less how fast u are and matters more on whether u can have good pickup, good lookahead and good tps (which xu has plenty of that lol)