1)Was is completely fine as he didn't fall behind because he wasn't as good; just that he doesn't practise anymore.1. Alex WAS faster than Feliks
2. Similar does not mean equal
what is being asked and why to me? i'm kind of confused on what you're saying.I just don't think given what has been shown to be possible it is right to just be outright dismissive of Roux. In addition, you may want to speak to @GuRoux about there only being one person to prove that it is a good method. Given how much less time quite a few of these people have cubing, this simply adds more reason
Exactly.This whole argument about whether or not my sub 7 average proves roux to be as fast as CFOP is pretty stupid. I don't think anyone can convince the other side, since everyone seems to have already made up their mind. Since nobody is anywhere near the absolute limits of CFOP or roux (based on the maximum TPS that's humanly possible), it's pretty hard to say which is better. Basing an opinion on the fastest solvers does provide some type of basis for argument, but even then it's not perfect because of the disparity between the number of CFOP solvers and the number of roux solvers. Some people will say that there are fewer roux solvers yet we are faster and that this is proof that roux is better, but it is entirely possible that those of us who are considered fast are just exceptions, or that we would've been the same speed with CFOP (assuming the same amount of practise time over the same time period). The single and average world records for 3x3 and OH have been held by CFOP solvers for quite a long time now, which is pretty good evidence that CFOP might be better, but this could definitely just be because there are way more people who use CFOP. Anything you really try to argue for either side ends up cycling back into a counterargument that is equally valid.
I also don't fully agree, but I don't fully disagree; he definitely has something figured out when pointing out that people have their preferences. In moderation, though, methods are definitely not equal, which is why conversations about them are so interesting.That's just stupid
Isnt Kian proof enough? I did not imply that you can get sub 7 with LBL. Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps. LBL would be out of the question.can someone become sub7 with LBL? NO, so there's obviously faster and slower methods so the whole "Roux and CFOP are equal" thing is just stupid, unless you show heaps of evidence to support the claim that they are EQUAL.
There's a woman at my local chinese resturant with 3 thumbs, isn't that proof enough humans is a 3 thumbed spieces?!Isnt Kian proof enough?
SIMILAR DOES NOT EQUAL EQUALWith CFOP you can have 10 tps on average with 55 - 60 moves. Roux has a 45 - 50 moves average. It has been proven by many roux users that you can turn really fast with roux and still maintain the efficiency. So why cant roux break the record? The sky is the limit; or in this case, the cuber.
This (the next quote):how can you be so sure they are exactly as good in terms of speed? This seems like a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Isn't roux more efficient then CFOP?Everyone who has been cubing for sometime would know that time = movecount/tps.
I dont even know what that is.Dunning-Kruger effect.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|[Canadian NR] Bill Wang - 6.72 3x3 Average||General Speedcubing Discussion||14|
|[Canadian NR] 10.64 One Handed Average - Antoine Cantin||WR/CR/NR solves||1|
|[Canadian NRs] 52.24 and 46.21 5x5 Average and Single - Bill Wang||WR/CR/NR solves||0|
|24.65 Canadian NR 4x4 single||WR/CR/NR solves||1|
|[Canadian NR] 7.10 3x3 Average - Bill Wang||General Speedcubing Discussion||0|