Will anyone ever come out with a better method?

[miniGOINGS]

id say that BigGreen has perfected roux, beyond the level of fridrich.

For himself yes, but I still think that he'll get faster at Roux.

 

[jms_gears1]

yea, then hell get the new WR then everyone will be like ZOMG ROUX RAWX

EDIT: i forgot the first half of the sentence...

 

[DavidWoner]

More popular? No, Fridrich will forever be known.
Faster? I believe there are already methods in existence that are faster than Fridrich. They (the methods) just haven't been perfected by an individual down to the level Fridrich has.

This.

id say that BigGreen has perfected roux, beyond the level of fridrich.

(3:34:16 PM) BigGreen: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=279900&postcount=40 false

 

[jms_gears1]

More popular? No, Fridrich will forever be known.
Faster? I believe there are already methods in existence that are faster than Fridrich. They (the methods) just haven't been perfected by an individual down to the level Fridrich has.

This.

id say that BigGreen has perfected roux, beyond the level of fridrich.

(3:34:16 PM) BigGreen: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=279900&postcount=40 false

i dont know, hes pretty damn good, actually hes the best. 8.xx seconds wasnt it?

 

[BigGreen]

More popular? No, Fridrich will forever be known.
Faster? I believe there are already methods in existence that are faster than Fridrich. They (the methods) just haven't been perfected by an individual down to the level Fridrich has.

This.

id say that BigGreen has perfected roux, beyond the level of fridrich.

(3:34:16 PM) BigGreen: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=279900&postcount=40 false

i dont know, hes pretty damn good, actually hes the best. [8.07] seconds wasnt it?

sure im good, but i dont think ive perfected it.

 

[StachuK1992]

He doesn't really practice all that much, methinks. He seems to spend a LOT of time playing some video game racing thing.
I think he could be a lot better.

 

[jms_gears1]

i think big green should make roux tuts xPP just so we have more than one good tut, i wanna make one but i need a decent camera first...

 

[Dene]

I'm just gonna say no - there isn't a better method.

Oh, and to the people promoting ZZ - you're wasting your time.

 

[jms_gears1]

I'm just gonna say no - there isn't a better method.

Oh, and to the people promoting ZZ - you're wasting your time.

and this would be because?

 

[Dene]

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

 

[jms_gears1]

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

awww well ZZ is pretty cool.

unfortunately everyone learns the lbl method, and ends up learning fridrich as the natural extension.

i think we need to come up with a block builder beginners method...

 

[miniGOINGS]

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

Do not fear, Mini is here!!!

 

[Cool Frog]

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

awww well ZZ is pretty cool.

unfortunately everyone learns the lbl method, and ends up learning fridrich as the natural extension.

i think we need to come up with a block builder beginners method...

is it right to use f2l concepts to do petrus? if not then i need to re learn =(

 

[StachuK1992]

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

awww well ZZ is pretty cool.

unfortunately everyone learns the lbl method, and ends up learning fridrich as the natural extension.

i think we need to come up with a block builder beginners method...

is it right to use f2l concepts to do petrus? if not then i need to re learn =(

It's not a matter of being right. It's a matter of being efficient.
Nonetheless, both block-building concepts and 'F2L' concepts should be used. Fridrich-type F2L pairing is less efficient than one can do otherwise, for many cases, as one doesn't have to worry about messing up D-Layer pieces and the like.

 

[mazei]

until someone gets a sub-1 on 4x4 with it, I'm not convinced.

Waffle has done this. I don't know if he's actually gotten a sub-1 avg12 yet, but he has been painfully close a few times. I think his redux is usually around 35ish when he is getting good times. M slices on 4x4 are not too hard, but yes, when you get to cubes like 6x6 and 7x7 it really becomes a problem, because STM is no longer viable for analyzing movecount.

I was talking about Stadler which is kinda like Roux for big cubes. Maybe on tight V-5s like mine which would keep every layer intact when doing M is good for Roux.

 

[jms_gears1]

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

awww well ZZ is pretty cool.

unfortunately everyone learns the lbl method, and ends up learning fridrich as the natural extension.

i think we need to come up with a block builder beginners method...

is it right to use f2l concepts to do petrus? if not then i need to re learn =(

actually F2L is block building,

the goal of blockbuilding is to pair up pieces together to solve portions of the cube.

ill do an exampleish thing real fast

scramble:
L2 B2 F2 L B' R2 D U' B2 F' U2 L' U L' B' F' L' R' B' F' D L' R' U' R

1x2x2: D' U' R U M' B
2x2x2: L D' L2

for the 1x2x2 what i did was put the DL edge in its place, then made an f2l pair and placed it

then i put the BD edge in its correct place and connected the squares together to make the 2x2x2

you might check out heise it would be a good method to learn blockbuilding

 

[Escher]

Cons
- EOLine is really difficult. I'd estimate it'd take 6 months to a year of solid practice to get decent at.

After a couple of weeks, maybe 3 days of actually practice, I'm getting a pretty good handle on it.

When I say 'decent' I mean; EOLine always around 7 moves, able to plan the EOLine stage in 5-7s or less consistently, able to execute in <2s consistently, able to lookahead considerably to f2l from inspection, & able to do confidently so that you can inspect the rest of the cube during execution.
If you can do all of those things in 3 days practice then I worship you.

- Getting used to <R, U, L> blockbuilding and doing it fast is difficult. It is harder to 'automate' blockbuilding rather than 'automate' solving cfop pairs.

I would have to disagree. It may be hard for someone to switch from Fridrich to ZZ, I'm having no problem from Roux to ZZ.

Well, you aren't and can't really disagree with anything I've said there. It is difficult to get used to <R, U, L> blockbuilding and do it fast (by fast I mean 8s f2l), and it is a fact that intuitive and intelligent blockbuilding is harder to automate than dumb Fridrich

But yes, I can imagine that those switching from blockbuilding methods to ZZ might find it easier than those switching from cfop.

I'm just gonna say no - there isn't a better method.

Oh, and to the people promoting ZZ - you're wasting your time.

I am? It is the least used and analysed, and currently has the most potential for development of the 3 less common speedsolving methods.

There was a huge craze with it some years ago, and it died out because nobody liked it.

'Huge craze'? I find little on these forums about it that wasn't from '08.
It isn't a particularly worthwhile contribution to the discussion to say 'Don't waste your time, nobody liked it a while ago'. Especially when there was less information and developments for that method 'a few years ago'.

Not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but it took me a week or two of practicing ZZ alongside Fridrich to get a 12s average. I don't really see how that was a waste of time and I have no doubt that if I practiced ZZ purely for the next 6 months I could get a sub 11, if not sub 10 average of 12.

 

[fanwuq]

Yeah, the weakness of Roux is that it is only really good for 3x3 speed. On big cubes and OH, it is completely destroyed by Fridrich. This is pretty much the main reason why I'll never fully switch to another method - Fridrich is just too versatile, and I've never only been interested in 3x3 speed.

I have to agree with this. I explored other methods, but I always end up coming back to Fridrich. ZZ and Petrus can be just as good as Fridrich, but they are just harder to get fast at. I think Fridrich will always remain the fastest method in general. Maybe one day a really lucky Roux, Waterman, or Petrus solver can get the 3x3x3 single, but I don't see anything beyond that.

 

[miniGOINGS]

When I say 'decent' I mean; EOLine always around 7 moves, able to plan the EOLine stage in 5-7s or less consistently, able to execute in <2s consistently, able to lookahead considerably to f2l from inspection, & able to do confidently so that you can inspect the rest of the cube during execution.
If you can do all of those things in 3 days practice then I worship you.

Ok, slightly different from my definition of 'decent'.

Well, you aren't and can't really disagree with anything I've said there. It is difficult to get used to <R, U, L> blockbuilding and do it fast (by fast I mean 8s f2l), and it is a fact that intuitive and intelligent blockbuilding is harder to automate than dumb Fridrich

But yes, I can imagine that those switching from blockbuilding methods to ZZ might find it easier than those switching from cfop.

True, I'm not really dissagreeing with you, my apologies.

'Huge craze'? I find little on these forums about it that wasn't from '08.
It isn't a particularly worthwhile contribution to the discussion to say 'Don't waste your time, nobody liked it a while ago'. Especially when there was less information and developments for that method 'a few years ago'.

Yea.

 

[~Phoenix Death~]

Your question is wrong. There is no 'better' method. It depends on which Methods suits you BEST. Even people using the Beginners method do fine. Someone averages about 1:44 on the 4x4x4 using Reduction.