OH Method Debate

[Etotheipi]

No they aren't. It is perfectly reasonable logic.

It really isnt. Saying a similar thing to someone before here, back in the early days of cubing, records were set with CF, but obviously CFOP and Roux and other modern methods are better, but by that logic CF would have been better than CFOP or Roux.

 

[cringeycuber101]

No, it's actually completely illogical. Less people use Roux, or ZZ, or LEOR, or ZZRoux, or whatever than CFOP, so of course the times will be worse. You can't have that many people in the top X because there's less Roux(or whatever) users than CFOP users. And one person's times do not show the limit of a method

less people use it because it is worse.

 

[ProStar]

less people use it because it is worse.

Give me objective proof it's worse.

 

[Etotheipi]

less people use it because it is worse.

You have no evidense that that is the reason, and cannot assume it blindly, or that they are worse at all.

 

[cringeycuber101]

I do have evidence, just go look at the best method debate thread.

 

[brododragon]

I'm just following the logic used before in the thread, if the best avg was done with a particular method, then that method is better. By that logic 2H cfop is absolutely better than OH cfop.

Refer to below.

less people use it because it is worse.

Wait wait wait. It's worse because people get less WRs with it, but less people use it, which would explain it, but the real reason is that it's worse, meaning less people use it? That makes no sense. The reason less people use it is just because it's newer, and because of that, there are less WRs with it.

 

[ProStar]

I do have evidence, just go look at the best method debate thread.

Literally all you've said is that there are minimal top results with it. You're trying to get me stuck in circular reasoning, but it isn't working. Give me some proof or admit everything you've said is either BS or an opinion

 

[brododragon]

I do have evidence, just go look at the best method debate thread.

How about you respond to all the points I made against your argument?

 

[Etotheipi]

@cringeycuber101 all your arguments were the standard CFOP fan-boy arguments that have been shot down hundreds of times. That being said, I have the standard Roux-fanboy argument that Sean is an alien superhero.

 

[brododragon]

Roux-fanboy argument that Sean is an alien superhero.

Stop telling us what we all already know

@cringeycuber101 all your arguments were the standard CFOP fan-boy arguments that have been shot down hundreds of times.

Yeah, just go back a month or two, to the last CFOP supremacy breakout and you'll see the exact same things.

 

[I'm A Cuber]

CFOP supremacy

CFOP is the best. Period. End of story.

 

[ProStar]

CFOP is the best. Period. End of story.

Objective proof please.

 

[brododragon]

CFOP is the best. Period. End of story.

And DON'T use arguments that have already been shot down.

 

[Micah Morrison]

Stop telling us what we all already know

Yeah, just go back a month or two, to the last CFOP supremacy breakout and you'll see the exact same things.

yeah, I think a couple months ago I used that logic to a certain extent to promote CFOP, but I've changed to better logic that CFOP and Roux are likely equal, but neither of them is bad for 3x3 2H or for OH. CFOP is better for big cubes, and Roux is (most likely) better for OH, but CFOP is still viable for OH and Roux has not proved to be viable for big cubes.

 

[brododragon]

yeah, I think a couple months ago I used that logic to a certain extent to promote CFOP, but I've changed to better logic that CFOP and Roux are likely equal, but neither of them is bad for 3x3 2H or for OH. CFOP is better for big cubes, and Roux is (most likely) better for OH, but CFOP is still viable for OH and Roux has not proved to be viable for big cubes.

Your journey to the dark side begins...

 

[I'm A Cuber]

Objective proof please.

And DON'T use arguments that have already been shot down.

I use cfop, I’m too lazy to get as good with other methods, and I want to feel good about myself. I dislike (Insert Brody Here) lying to myself, but sometimes, I’ve just gotta do it.

 

[mukerflap]

yeah, I think a couple months ago I used that logic to a certain extent to promote CFOP, but I've changed to better logic that CFOP and Roux are likely equal, but neither of them is bad for 3x3 2H or for OH. CFOP is better for big cubes, and Roux is (most likely) better for OH, but CFOP is still viable for OH and Roux has not proved to be viable for big cubes.

how is roux not viable for big cubes M slices are easy

 

[Micah Morrison]

how is roux not viable for big cubes M slices are easy

doing reduction and solving the 3x3 stage with roux is probably just around 5 seconds slower than doing that with CFOP, since it seems like building the blocks is harder without inspection than building a cross. Also, M slices are doable on 6x6 and 7x7 now that they're magnetic, but it's still not ideal. Also, I think Meyer is certainly not viable, or at least hasn't proven to be even close to viable.

 

[mukerflap]

doing reduction and solving the 3x3 stage with roux is probably just around 5 seconds slower than doing that with CFOP, since it seems like building the blocks is harder without inspection than building a cross. Also, M slices are doable on 6x6 and 7x7 now that they're magnetic, but it's still not ideal. Also, I think Meyer is certainly not viable, or at least hasn't proven to be even close to viable.

you seriously think +5 seconds because you cant plan the first block?

 

[Micah Morrison]

you seriously think +5 seconds because you cant plan the first block?

and just worse fingertricks for big cubes. Like, for CFOP, you can pretty much do one or two extra rotations and do RUF but in Roux you're doing a bunch of different movesets which can be harder for big cubes.