Roux, fridrich, or zz

[mr6768]

Fridrich anyway . why to go learn ZZ with hell of algorithms when still records with Fridrich are faster than ZZ ?!

 

[waffle=ijm]

Simple. It's called preference and ZZ isn't a hell of algorithms.

 

[qqwref]

what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.

OCLL/PLL is one option; you can also try COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. ZZLL (phasing) is where you make sure to solve two opposite edges while you put in the last F2L pair, and then solve the LL in one look - it's more cases than COLL but much less than ZBLL.

 

[y3k9]

what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.

OCLL/PLL is one option; you can also try COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. ZZLL (phasing) is where you make sure to solve two opposite edges while you put in the last F2L pair, and then solve the LL in one look - it's more cases than COLL but much less than ZBLL.

ahh i see, then i might learn zbll or zzll.

 

[Edward]

what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.

OCLL/PLL is one option; you can also try COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. ZZLL (phasing) is where you make sure to solve two opposite edges while you put in the last F2L pair, and then solve the LL in one look - it's more cases than COLL but much less than ZBLL.

ahh i see, then i might learn zbll or zzll.

Way easier said than done :I

 

[y3k9]

what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.

OCLL/PLL is one option; you can also try COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. ZZLL (phasing) is where you make sure to solve two opposite edges while you put in the last F2L pair, and then solve the LL in one look - it's more cases than COLL but much less than ZBLL.

ahh i see, then i might learn zbll or zzll.

Way easier said than done :I

nah, im good at memorizing stuff.

 

[Edward]

what is zz last layer? I just use zz for the first 2 layers then oll and pll.

OCLL/PLL is one option; you can also try COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. ZZLL (phasing) is where you make sure to solve two opposite edges while you put in the last F2L pair, and then solve the LL in one look - it's more cases than COLL but much less than ZBLL.

ahh i see, then i might learn zbll or zzll.

Way easier said than done :I

nah, im good at memorizing stuff.

I think most of here would be considered good at memorizing things.

 

[incessantcheese]

putting "lol" in a sentence doesn't absolve that some of your points aren't entirely correct nor does it help support your arguments. You can't say that method x > method y on the grounds of user statistics.

EDIT to above - I like "lols" but in a serious argument they really don't help. Again your argument that CFOP> Roux is just annoying.

yes, i know the argument is annoying for you, but i've never seen what i felt was an adequate explanation for why they're equal. i've only ever seen a lot of different people get immediately ridiculed for saying that fridrich is the fastest method, always by people who use roux.

i posted what i thought on the matter, and apparently, about halfway through that post i gave kirjava a headache -_-. i'm not trying to intentionally annoy you guys, i just don't get why it isn't okay to say that right now, cfop is faster than roux.

if the top 100 professional tennis players used two-handed backhands instead of one, i'd be willing to say that two-handed backhands are the way to go. if you were then to claim that one-handed is just as good, simply different, i'd say that you would have to make quite an astounding argument to convince me.

 

[a small kitten]

nah, im good at memorizing stuff.

I guarantee that you'll quit in a few days. It takes a lot of work to be able to use that many algs fluently. As Mr. Edward said, it's much easier said than done.

Fridrich anyway . why to go learn ZZ with hell of algorithms when still records with Fridrich are faster than ZZ ?!

I'm faster than you. Why are you still cubing?

A world record was set in the 80s with a corners first method. Why did people bother to explore other methods when that method held the record?

 

[iasimp1997]

ZZ.

 

[StachuK1992]

I wish I had started with ZZ or Roux.

However, Roux had a very small community, and ZZ wasn't introduced into the non-Polish community until later on, afaik.

Right now, just try a bit of everything - maybe you'll fall in love with one method and just go on it.

 

[Kirjava]

Oh, incessantcheese is back.

I was going to ask him to reply to my last post, but I dislike reiterating myself to someone who refuses to listen to me.

He just doesn't get it.

 

[incessantcheese]

i replied to your last post quickly before i left.

i'm reading what you're saying, i'm just not convinced.

 

[Kirjava]

i replied to your last post quickly before i left.

i'm reading what you're saying, i'm just not convinced.

Oh, you edited it after.

You are frustratingly stupid.

edit: well since kirjava posted as i was leaving and i can't resist - my original point was that since different methods are clearly faster or not faster than others, it's silly to say that roux, cfop, or zz are equal. just because they're hard to compare doesn't mean you can just say they're the same speed. some methods are clearly faster than others and the chance that three arbitrary methods are "equal" doesn't really work for me. qqwref already stated he doesn't think zz is as fast as the others, and i think it's totally okay to argue that fridrich is currently faster than roux. you don't, but that doesn't mean they're equal.

You missed this;

I think by equal he means "equally able to produce fast times".

murrrr

car analogy aside, i don't see why anybody would be suited to one method better than another. sure, they can like a method more, but that doesn't mean that it's faster for them. people can prefer driving manual, but that doesn't mean it's the most efficient thing for them to do.

MAYBE SOME PEOPLE ARE REALLY GOOD AT SLICE MOVES AND SOME ARE REALLY BAD AT THEM. I DO NOT KNOW HOW I CAN MAKE THIS ANY SIMPLER FOR YOU.

 

[incessantcheese]

You are frustratingly stupid.

lol

well, i'm not sure what you're getting at by bringing up "equally able to produce fast times". we already talked about this - we agree now that not all methods can produce the same times, so it doesn't make sense to say that cfop, zz, and roux are all equal.

i'm not really sure if i see how it's possible for someone to be better at slices than other people. it's pretty much a matter of practice... unless they have like, really fat fingers or something. obviously, the people who practice slices more are going to be faster at them, but i don't see how there could be something inherent from one person to the next that would render them incapable of slicing quickly.
i had no idea you were even thinking in this direction. i assumed you were going for the "spatially intelligent people would be better at block-building" angle or something.

 

[waffle=ijm]

We're talking the 3 methods Roux, ZZ, and CFOP. All of them are capable of producing fast times. We're not extending that to, for example, the devil's algorithm. Yes not all methods can produce same times. But those 3 are capable.

 

[incessantcheese]

no no my point was - if slower methods are slower, and faster methods are faster, how are you able to pinpoint these three methods and say that it is impossible to rank them against each other? it doesn't make any sense.

anyway, i have to go for real now, see ya.

 

[Kirjava]

we agree now that not all methods can produce the same times, so it doesn't make sense to say that cfop, zz, and roux are all equal.

All those methods you named are capable of getting equally fast times.

i'm not really sure if i see how it's possible for someone to be better at slices than other people.

...

 

[Joker]

Which do you think is best?

I like Fridrich 'cause it looks cool.
I like Roux 'cause the last step looks cool.
I like ZZ 'cause the name sounds cool.

Apart from that, I'm going with Waffle on this one.

Yeah I'll have to go with Chris with this one cause he's cool.
It just depends how good you get with each method.

 

[waffle=ijm]

you know what I just realized. methods can't be fast since they are systems of solving and by no way are capable of physically solving the cube.

people can be fast though.

So lets put it this way. Lets say a "Faz" existed for each of the 3 methods. This Faz is completely color neutral and recognizes cases (this would include blocks and bad edges) instantly. His TPS is off the charts and lets give him the perfect cube too. One that doesn't lock and pop like it was a night club.

Now what?