Which one is faster: ZZ or CFOP?

[Pyjam]

Two questions :

1) If you tried both, which method do you think is the fastest: ZZ-VH* or CFOP, for 2H on 3x3x3 ?
*ZZ-VH is ZZ with COLL then EPLL.

2) Among the top 20 cubers, who uses ZZ (a variant or another) as their main method?

Thanks

 

[Kirjava]

Methods don't have speeds.

 

[Innocence]

Two questions :

1) If you tried both, which method do you think is the fastest: ZZ-VH* or CFOP, for 2H on 3x3x3 ?
*ZZ-VH is ZZ with COLL then EPLL.

2) Among the top 20 cubers, who uses ZZ (a variant or another) as their main method?

Thanks

My answer to question 2 - Without looking - Nobody. Just guessing there.

To number one:

What is longer, a piece of string, or a piece of liquorice?

 

[Pyjam]

I’m sure you’re clever enough to understand the questions.

 

[Innocence]

I’m sure you’re clever enough to understand the questions.

Not sure who you're talking to here, but we both understood your questions, or implied that we thought we did by attempting to answer.

 

[Kirjava]

No one can say that CFOP is objectively faster than ZZ or vice versa.

One may be faster than another for a specific person, but that doesn't mean it is actually faster overall.

Also, trying to find meaning by looking at heavily skewed statistics is a bad idea.

 

[Cubenovice]

LOL I read that as skewbed statistics...

 

[Vinny]

Methods don't matter, people can get fast with almost any method (ok, maybe not beginner's, but you get my point).

A good example of a CFOP solver is obviously Feliks.
A good example of a ZZ solver is a small kitten
A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle

You can get great times with any method. It takes practice and motivation.

 

[Kirjava]

A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle

BigGreen

 

[Godmil]

A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle

Kirjava

 

[JyH]

Methods don't matter, people can get fast with almost any method (ok, maybe not beginner's, but you get my point).

A good example of a CFOP solver is obviously Feliks.
A good example of a ZZ solver is a small kitten
A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle

You can get great times with any method. It takes practice and motivation.

Wow...Way to leave out Thom right in front of him.

 

[Kirjava]

Wha, I don't care. It's just important to point out BigGreen as he's the fastest.

 

[BC1997]

no method is faster than the other, just the cuber.

 

[Pyjam]

Methods don't matter, people can get fast with almost any method (ok, maybe not beginner's, but you get my point).

A good example of a CFOP solver is obviously Feliks.
A good example of a ZZ solver is a small kitten
A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle

You can get great times with any method. It takes practice and motivation.

I get your point but I don't share your opinion. You're right: practice and motivation are the reasons for which one is more at ease with one method.
But what top athlete uses Scissors for high jump? Who uses natural bids for Bridge? What can you conclude?

 

[Kirjava]

But what top athlete uses Scissors for high jump? Who uses natural bids for Bridge? What can you conclude?

This doesn't prove anything. Would you conclude that the Scissors *must* be the best method before the Flop became widespread because all the top athletes used it? Of course you would, and you would have been wrong.

If the top 20 averages were set with Waterman because no one gave CFOP a chance would you conclude that it was the best method?

 

[Pyjam]

I would have concluded that Scissors was the best known method.

Are you saying that nobody in the top 20 has ever tried ZZ?
I thought they know numerous methods and hundred algs.

 

[miniGOINGS]

I would have concluded that Scissors was the best known method.

Are you saying that nobody in the top 20 has ever tried ZZ?
I thought they know numerous methods and hundred algs.

Woah woah woah. Just because a top 20 cube has tried ZZ doesn't make ZZ a top 20 method. I'm pretty sure that EVERY SINGLE TOP 20 CUBER tried LBL. It must be the best then, right? Because every top cuber has not only tried it, but used it.

 

[Escher]

Lol this is a nub debate.

Yeah I know ZZ and have 12.xx averages with it, Spef has sub 11ed. It's a great method (and I imagine there will be sub 9 solvers with it one day) but no way can I be bothered to put in the thousands of hours it would take to get as fast as I am with CFOP as with ZZ, especially since I can barely be bothered to practice cubing at all any more.

 

[Kirjava]

Are you saying that nobody in the top 20 has ever tried ZZ?
I thought they know numerous methods and hundred algs.

There's a difference between knowing a method and being able to perform it as proficiently as your 'main' method. (I can't believe this has to be pointed out to you)

This thread comes around every few months on this forum, it usually ends with me trying to explain to someone who doesn't quite understand the situation about how you cannot use statistics to show that one method is better than another.

Feel free to ignore my question about Waterman, I know thinking about the answer may make you question what you believe.

 

[freshcuber]

People use Fridrich because it's a simple concept and very easy to improve with. It's also an easy transition from a noob LBL method to F2L and a 2-look LL. I dabbled with ZZ a few months ago and I really liked it but then I just stopped practicing. If someone can perform EOLine as fast as a great Fridrich solver does cross I think ZZ can be just as fast. The only problem is that most methods other than Fridrich arent used widely enough to know. If Faz used ZZ or Roux he'd probably still be sub-10. If that has any relevance.


tl;dr It's the cuber, not the method.