ZZ is Better Than CFOP

[abunickabhi]

Mehta is such more fancier than ZZ method imo.

 

[IsThatA4x4]

Mehta is such more fancier than ZZ method imo.

Unfortunately fancier methods tend to be slower which is sad...
Unless you use RUS U perms in which case you are fancy and fast and I will love you

 

[Thom S.]

What of VHLS?

As someone, who actually uses VHLS for years, Knowing when to sledgehammer on Slots 3 and 4 is important and things like F U F' before R U' R' are good EO tricks, but most Split Paur Cases are not worth it that much. Doing most of EO on Slot(s 2 and) 3 so you end up with these 3 good cases is a bit better

 

[Timona]

Unfortunately fancier methods tend to be slower which is sad...
Unless you use RUS U perms in which case you are fancy and fast and I will love you

If sub-10 is what qualifies a method to be called fast, then Mehta is Gucci because sub-10 Mehta is achievable.

 

[voidrx]

If sub-10 is what qualifies a method to be called fast, then Mehta is Gucci because sub-10 Mehta is achievable.

That's a terrible way to determine if it's one of the best methods. You could probably achieve sub10 with a large number of methods.

 

[PiKeeper]

That's a terrible way to determine if it's one of the best methods. You could probably achieve sub10 with a large number of methods.

I bet max park could get sub-10 with RUPM and it's a very fancy method, therefore RUPM is one of the best methods.

 

[Kyoobies]

Who is currently the fastest ZZ solver (3x3 or OH)?

This is some of the fastest zz solving I've ever seen personally. They're not a zz solver anymore more though as they fully switched to cfop and are faster with it/set all their PRs with it; but they still do zz for fun.

 

[Klaudiusz Szyprocinski]

 

[SuperDuperSir]

eoline is garbage
he compares eoline to cfop
in the case of eoline, it may be slightly slower
but eocross with full zbll is probably better

eoline user here lol

 

[turtwig]

eoline is garbage
he compares eoline to cfop
in the case of eoline, it may be slightly slower
but eocross with full zbll is probably better

eoline user here lol

He touches on eocross in the last few minutes

 

[Swagrid]

He touches on eocross in the last few minutes

yeah he basically says "it's hard but optimal" which is quite funny because it
1) disregards it for being hard, when the step is considered to be of equal difficulty to cross+1, which Jay is an advocate for
2) admits that he knows eocross was optimal but decided to spend half an hour arguing suboptimal zz vs optimal cfop anyway lol

 

[SunnyCubing]

Well ZZ is harder to learn and there is less tutorials and tips then on CFOP

I think cfop is better tho

 

[voidrx]

I think cfop is better tho

Why

 

[SunnyCubing]

Why

cuz its easier to find tutiorals on the internet annnd feliks and jperm usees it

 

[Swagrid]

cuz its easier to find tutiorals on the internet

This doesn't relate to the quality of the method?

feliks and jperm usees

and?

 

[SunnyCubing]

This doesn't relate to the quality of the method?

and?

Hi Hagrid

 

[voidrx]

cuz its easier to find tutiorals on the internet annnd feliks and jperm usees it

I literally addressed this point earlier in this thread.
Just because two popular people use it, doesn't mean ZZ is worse than CFOP. Jperm isnt even worldclass so idk why you were using him as an example.

 

[turtwig]

The fact that almost no one fast uses ZZ is evidence that it's not as good as CFOP, though. It's not very convincing to say that ZZ is better than CFOP when there's literally no one who's actually gotten good (official) times with it. ZZ is pretty similar to CFOP, so surely if it were actually much better there would be at least a couple of fast CFOP solvers who experiment with and see it's potential (and thus switch)? The theory is that a few extra moves during cross is worth getting RUL gen F2L and 1LLL, but people have been using these same arguments for why ZZ is good/better since at least 7 years ago when I started cubing and apparently no one has actually been able to use ZZ to show that the trade-off is worth it, which suggests strongly to me that it is not (or at least that the difference is not appreciable).

 

[Thom S.]

The fact that almost no one fast uses ZZ is evidence that it's not as good as CFOP, though. It's not very convincing to say that ZZ is better than CFOP when there's literally no one who's actually gotten good (official) times with it.

I don't want to discuss, because you know I don't like to talk about this subject but I don't like that argument.
Almost noone fast drives a Bugatti or a Koenigsegg, doesn't automatically mean there are faster cars.

CFOP got popular in the 90s,00s because it was available (on the internet), information and algs were already there and it essily caught on.
Roux wasn't as content back then since M moves were not a one finger flick, Petrus lost popularity even back then and once ZZ hit the scene, CFOP was the popular way for years already.

Sure, you can say that a cars top speed is easily measurable but a solve time has way more parameters and you'd be right, but top speed doesn't define which car is better. Otherwise the method which allows you to do an R4 move the quickest would win and that doesn't make sense either.
Handling, weight, type of gearbox, gear ratios, type of shifting mechanism, aerodynamics, clutch sensitivity are all parameters that define a good car. Some of which are objectively defineable as the best, some can only be defined by what the driver feels more comfortable in. Same with methods. Despite CFOP using almost 20 moves more than Heise, the community uses CFOP for speedsolving.
And you can't say that the most used car of all time, the Ford Model T(records vary) is the best car just because it has the most users.

 

[OreKehStrah]

The fact that almost no one fast uses ZZ is evidence that it's not as good as CFOP, though. It's not very convincing to say that ZZ is better than CFOP when there's literally no one who's actually gotten good (official) times with it. ZZ is pretty similar to CFOP, so surely if it were actually much better there would be at least a couple of fast CFOP solvers who experiment with and see it's potential (and thus switch)? The theory is that a few extra moves during cross is worth getting RUL gen F2L and 1LLL, but people have been using these same arguments for why ZZ is good/better since at least 7 years ago when I started cubing and apparently no one has actually been able to use ZZ to show that the trade-off is worth it, which suggests strongly to me that it is not (or at least that the difference is not appreciable).

Here’s the problem with this argument. For most of ZZ’s life people were using EOLine because they thought the efficiency was good (and honestly probably just wanted to be quirky and more different from CFOP). EOLine is kinda oof. EOCross is part of what makes ZZ good and that didn’t really take off in the ZZ world until 2018-2019 ish.

Now, there’s also way less people using ZZ than CFOP so there’s way less people who have the potential to get fast using it. Just look at CFOP. There are WAY more cubers using CFOP but so far only 1 person has pulled a sub5 avg. Why? It’s hard. Does that make CFOP bad because it’s hard to sub5 ? No of course not. It just means it requires the right kind of person. In a similar vein, ZZ also requires the right kind of person. RadMac has a 5.14 Ao5 at home iirc and that’s without full ZBLL. I really suspect we may never see many faster ZZ solvers because almost everyone in this community immediately dunks on ZZ because they repeat sentiments about Old EOLine ZZ and never even try what people are doing with the method these days, like EOCross and full CN.