Edge control is really easy even for intermediate solvers. ZZ is straight up garbage.
Garbage, huh?
This seems to be an incredibly common remark that is made by countless young members. It has no validity and is an impulsive statement with no logical reasoning behind. If you ponder upon it any critically thinking being can obviously see that this type of thing is my bologna.
First, let's define garbage. When used as a derogatory insult this is a very strong word. It is never used to mean "not as good" or "slightly worse/inferior. It means so bad that it makes one question its existence. So bad that it deserves to be shoved into a pit of disposal so that it may be destroyed. So bad that it is so objectively and immeasurably worse that the very thought of thinking otherwise is just silly.
"Straight up" implies that there is no way this can be deflected because it is so objectively true.
Now, let's address why this statement is silly.
Something that could make a method bad would be taking an incredible amount of moves to reach a simple goal. The Chad method is garbage. It uses a ton of algorithms to do something that can be achieved more efficiently with other methods. The Chad method was created as a meme method though so it's purposely bad and a lazy point for me to make. The truth is is that it's very hard to find a method that is truly garbage because it's just too strong of a word. Even the "Sexy method" isn't garbage. For speed, maybe. But straight up? Not at all. It has taught millions of people how to solve the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube. That's a pretty reputable claim.
Now how is ZZ worse? Let's say somebody counters points made by reputable ZZ users. In theory many of their claims might seem to be obvious and they should theoretically be correct but the thing is is that not all their claims are true in practice. In reality CFOP has potential for greater creativity in a speedsolving environment. RUF really isn't that bad. Why are so many ZBLLS RUF while fewer are RUL? Why do OO cubers spam RUF and not RU? Why are top CFOP solvers so fluid while ZZers have tons of regrips and seem to suffer in transitioning? Yes, the ZZ community is a lot smaller than the CFOP community and also the Roux community but it is also full of knowledgeable people that should be incorporating the strengths of ZZ into their solve. Yet the ZZ usership remains small and we have never seen an Alex or a Sean, nor a Kian or Fahmi.
That's not to say that ZZ is worse than CFOP. I think it's a very interesting method, but we cannot write it off as straight up garbage simply because it doesn't get the same results. Very few cubers become sub-10. Even fewer become sub-8. A microscopic percentage is sub-7. Getting the right cuber to use ZZ with how unpopular it is would be a miracle and that has not been achieved yet. Most people brush off ZZ as inferior because they simply lack the knowledge. A very common error is that cubers don't like it because others don't This is true with ZZ and Petrus. Jperm has a video which I don't recommend anyone watch other than to cringe on what the best method is. He starts off by completely disregarding Petrus as a viable method which leads many cubers to believe that it is not worth studying. I have had a friend that believed Petrus was bad for that simple reason. Dylan than goes on listing a bunch of cons to ZZ but the thing is is that he's so broad and his points are either flawed, ignorant or straight up wrong. That same friend I mentioned also believed ZZ was bad. What makes this ridicules is that he had no original material to back his opinion up. He was basing his opinion of another method based solely on someone else's. He had nothing to prove. He was unprepared to discuss with someone who had a different opinion.
This problem doesn't just apply to cubing. The truth is is that opinion is just that. An opinion. what you say is not objective and you can't truthfully go around saying something is straight up garbage. Because it isn't. Even is ZZ is slightly worse that doesn't make it irrelevant and deserving to burn in hellfire for all eternity. That's just a stupid statement. Your opinion isn't better than others. You need to acknowledge that there are people pushing to get ZZ more recognition. Telling them they are pursuing a lost cause because it is invalid is not okay. One day we will get a sub-6 average officially with ZZ and what will you say? You'll have to retract your opinion because you have just been proven wrong. Your opinion is now "garbage". It doesn't hold up to truth. Even now without super great ZZ results I think a method getting sub-10 averages is good enough that is at least decent. That's more than can be said for APB and Nautilus.
No, ZZ isn't garbage, that is ridiculous claim. Any material you can garner on why ZZ is theoretically worse than ZZ will not make it a fact. It can't be proven. ZZ isn't bad, much less is it garbage.
Quack!
