Is CFOP Overrated?

[1001010101001]

If you compare CFOP to ZZ there is a bit worse with CFOP: ZZ just has none of those pesky rotations or weird OLLs. ZZ can also use Fish and Chips which is a LL method that averages 24 moves , compared to CFOP’s 30.
So why do so many people use CFOP?

 

[Sajwo]

Unless you know full ZBLL, movecount for CFOP and ZZ is almost the same. CFOP is also universal for any 2x2-7x7 cube, when ZZ is not, because of lack of the inspection.

 

[teboecubes]

CFOP has gotten WRs broken, so it's not overrated. If anything, ZZ and Roux are underrated.

 

[Hazel]

I don't think it's overrated, but it is overused maybe. Imagine a cubing community where the distribution of speedsolvers using ZZ, Roux, and CFOP was about equal, that would be pretty cool. Roux and ZZ would definitely be developed faster, and there would definitely be more people like Kian Mansour getting really fast with a method other than CFOP. If so many people weren't using CFOP, development of other things would be so much further and we probably would have broken new boundaries.

 

[Sion]

Cfop is more intuitive because there are less things to recognise intuitively. that said, that also means it takes up more moves than a method like roux. However, the recognition portion of roux forces more lookahead, and henceforth, slower turning speed.

There is no perfect method; If intuiton is high and movecount is low, tps will most likely be slower .

If a method is more algorithmic, you can turn at a higher tps, though at the expense of a higher movecount.

 

[WombatWarrior17]

I think what everyone else has said so far sums up my thoughts; CFOP isn't overrated, but ZZ and Roux are underrated, and CFOP is the best for 4x4-7x7.

For OH I think all three methods are great, but ZZ (and possibly Roux) has better ergonomics since there are very few -if any- rotations needed.

And what Sajwo said about move count is true, but ZZ-CT has a similar move count to Roux and far fewer and easier to learn algs than ZBLL.

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ-CT
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Roux

 

[Aaron Stettner]

CFOP is WAY overrated. I have learned almost every method there is, and let me just say this,
ZZ is in no way better than CFOP, people can just turn so fast with CFOP that the benefits of ZZ can't outweigh that fact. I'm not saying ZZ is a bad method, and I use and practice it because learning edge orientation is an extremely useful tool. I also know and practice Roux, Petrous, a variety of Columns methods, and I understand Heise, and am currently working to learn even more methods like Snyder, and full SSC. I am trying to get to the point where I am not using a single method per solve, but am using as many methods as possible per solve. This is essentially an extreme form of Freefop, but that's groovy. If you have no restraints on what you can do for a solve your times are going to be faster.

 

[xyzzy]

So why do so many people use CFOP?

If the other methods are indeed objectively better, they're not objectively better by a lot.

Also, one major advantage of CFOP you left out is that it's way easier to make use of premade blocks to build xcrosses. EOline + square is super difficult to look ahead into even if you have premade blocks.

ZZ can also use Fish and Chips

But nobody actually uses it for speedsolving because it's impossible to immediately recognise each case unless you learn all of them beforehand as ZBLL algs. And if you're going to do that, why not just learn the proper ZBLL algs? (I mean, I use what's essentially fish and chips for megaminx LL, but my excuse is that (i) nobody generated megaminx ZBLL algs and (ii) lol, megaminx ZBLL.)

but ZZ-CT has a similar move count to Roux

[citation needed]

 

[WombatWarrior17]

Just out of curiosity, why do threads like this keep popping up?

 

[pglewis]

This is a trick question, it's only overrated if you don't use zeroing.

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

It's a good method, as are Roux and ZZ.

 

[Underwatercuber]

This is a trick question, it's only overrated if you don't use zeroing.

Because slow people using zz and roux really like to try and prove cfop is bad

 

[Aaron Stettner]

In my opinion everyone should learn belt method

 

[Underwatercuber]

In my opinion everyone shouldn’t learn belt method

 

[Aaron Stettner]

Hey it's a good method

 

[WombatWarrior17]

Hey it's a good method

It has a higher move count than CFOP, and even the wiki says this: "Overall, Belt method has a reasonably large move count and is not as fast as other speed methods (CFOP, Roux, Petrus, CF etc.) However, it is a lot of fun and has been used to achieve sub-30."

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt_Method

 

[Aaron Stettner]

Even though it has a higher move count doesn't mean it's not fast. There are many methods that have way lower move counts than CFOP but still CFOP is faster than them. Belt is extremely algorithmic, and the majority of the solve is algorithms, meaning that for the majority of the solve you can turn at extremely high TPS.

 

[Sion]

Because slow people using zz and roux really like to try and prove cfop is bad

Thats my biggest problem with the CFOP vs Roux debate. They rely on very different philosophies to why they are so fast (CFOP being fast recognition and more algorithms, with Roux focusing on intuition and lower movecount). Everyone is different, so different people will prefer different methods.

I switch Between Columns and Roux (Which I am still learning because CMLL algorithms don't quite agree with my turning style) maybe along with semi advanced l5e plls.

 

[Aaron Stettner]

Which columns method do you use?

 

[Sion]

Which columns method do you use?

Four Corner-Edge pairs.

OCLL

D layer edges

L5EO

PLL.

I wanted to learn CMLL, but the problem was that the algorithms dont flow along with my turning style at all.

After I learn my G Perms, I'm going to aquaint myself with Dw/d moves over y rotations, and do my best to optimise and go color neutral.