• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Road to sub-10 with ZZ (ZZ progression starts after some pages since this was previously used for something else. Don't mind about the poll)

How fast do you think I will become with my method?

  • Sub-12

    Votes: 11 42.3%
  • Sub-11

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • Sub-10

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • Sub-9

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Sub-8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sub-7

    Votes: 4 15.4%

  • Total voters
    26

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
806
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
Those thoughts then, are misguided. I get that your statement is largely opinionated, but if you are happy and feel accomplished by doing something inventing something which you never really invented, do you really have the right to remain content about it? Additionally, I don't why one would have any reason to be sad or mad about it, at least in this scenario.

Are you discriminating people who use the big-4 as people who don't give things a chance? That's simply wrong for reasons that are self-explanatory.
I understand the thoughts are a little misguided but still they aint negative thoughts. By sad or mad, I mean disappointed. Thats all.

Discrimination? Really? Yall just saying methods are bad. Whatever he invented, yall striaght up just said "This is a worse version of Ribbon or a worse version oh Mehta" which is just plain rude. 2 Holes (his other method) I gave it a chance and in only 2 days I already have 2 sub-15 singles. In my opinion its a good and original method. Who else does Petrus 222 then F2L? Nobdoy, not on wiki, nothing. I dont know what his new method does but he removed the video (YouTube says) but I am completely sure its better than CFOP. You probably gave things a chance but I highly doubt everyone here did.

Please dont take this the wrong way Im just mad at people saying his new method is a worse version of mehta and ribbon
 

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
3,363
Location
some warm place down south
WCA
2019CHRI11
I'd rather think wrong and happy about a method than sad or mad but right about that same method.
Alright, so you would like an ignorant bliss. I’ll keep that in mind. Ignorance isn’t something that you want, not just in cubing, but for the rest of your life. If you do something wrong in a job someday, and keep making that same mistake, you will not have that job for much longer.

I like to give things a chance (unlike yall big-4 users)
I have actually tried all of the “big-4” methods, along with many more, such as Mehta, Nautilus, Waterman, and a couple others, so you can’t say “y’all” (contraction for “you all,” implying that none of the people who use CFOP, Roux, ZZ, or Petrus have tried any other methods). The thing is is that you can’t assume that we haven’t tried these methods. If we think that one of the big 4 methods is the best, then that’s what we’ll use. There is a reason that those 4 method have become way more popular and have gotten better results than all the rest. It’s because they are better.

Discrimination? Really? Yall just saying methods are bad. Whatever he invented, yall striaght up just said "This is a worse version of Ribbon or a worse version oh Mehta" which is just plain rude. 2 Holes (his other method) I gave it a chance and in only 2 days I already have 2 sub-15 singles.
How many people have to tell you that it’s not rude? It’s literally just informing them that their idea has already been thought of.

In my opinion its a good and original method. Who else does Petrus 222 then F2L? Nobdoy, not on wiki, nothing. I dont know what his new method does but he removed the video (YouTube says) but I am completely sure its better than CFOP. You probably gave things a chance but I highly doubt everyone here did.
Petrus literally does 2x2x2 then F2L. Do you know what Petrus even is? Also, how is 2-holes better than CFOP? CFOP is a highly optimized method that has been used by top solvers for decades. A poorly-made variation of another method isn’t going to beat that no matter what you do.
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
806
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
Alright, so you would like an ignorant bliss. I’ll keep that in mind. Ignorance isn’t something that you want, not just in cubing, but for the rest of your life. If you do something wrong in a job someday, and keep making that same mistake, you will not have that job for much longer.


I have actually tried all of the “big-4” methods, along with many more, such as Mehta, Nautilus, Waterman, and a couple others, so you can’t say “y’all” (contraction for “you all,” implying that none of the people who use CFOP, Roux, ZZ, or Petrus have tried any other methods). The thing is is that you can’t assume that we haven’t tried these methods. If we think that one of the big 4 methods is the best, then that’s what we’ll use. There is a reason that those 4 method have become way more popular and have gotten better results than all the rest. It’s because they are better.


How many people have to tell you that it’s not rude? It’s literally just informing them that their idea has already been thought of.


Petrus literally does 2x2x2 then F2L. Do you know what Petrus even is? Also, how is 2-holes better than CFOP? CFOP is a highly optimized method that has been used by top solvers for decades. A poorly-made variation of another method isn’t going to beat that no matter what you do.
"Just Informing" sounded a little bit rude on my end, tho I am sure thats not what you meant, I would just say, say it a little nicer next time.

Petrus does 222, 223, EO, Petrus F2L, ZBLL. 2 Holes does 222, F2L-2 cross edges, Solve 1 cross piece, solve corners, L5EO, L5EP. Very different.

You never tried Waterman lol thats a lie.

I would like to nominate myself for worst argument award btw
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
622
Location
the space-time continuum
YouTube
Visit Channel
"Just Informing" sounded a little bit rude on my end, tho I am sure thats not what you meant, I would just say, say it a little nicer next time.
When someone says That's just a worse method of this, or that, I would admit that it is a bit curt, but it is a simple way of informing the person that that idea has already been thought of. And I hear you saying that the statement could be nicer a lot, so how would you rephrase that to be nicer?
Petrus does 222, 223, EO, Petrus F2L, ZBLL. 2 Holes does 222, F2L-2 cross edges, Solve 1 cross piece, solve corners, L5EO, L5EP. Very different.
I personally don't know Petrus, so I'm not going to get into this argument, but please don't say that I'm not "giving it a chance".
You never tried Waterman lol thats a lie.
And what right do you have to state that? Do you think that you know him better than he knows himself? In the thread of the two sub-8 solves, you were being very persistent that the people don't have the right to say the solves were faked, so why are you hypocritical about it right now?
I would like to nominate myself for worst argument award btw
Lol, but if you think that your argument is the worst then why are you still persisting on it?
 

LukasCubes

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
806
Location
Idk
YouTube
Visit Channel
Lol, but if you think that your argument is the worst then why are you still persisting on it?
I have no idea lol
When someone says That's just a worse method of this, or that, I would admit that it is a bit curt, but it is a simple way of informing the person that that idea has already been thought of. And I hear you saying that the statement could be nicer a lot, so how would you rephrase that to be nicer?
"Hey, I do apologize if this is kinda rude but there is a similar version of this method on the wiki, sorry" [INSERT WIKI PAGE THING HERE]
In the thread of the two sub-8 solves, you were being very persistent that the people don't have the right to say the solves were faked, so why are you hypocritical about it right now?
I had a bunch of people ccuse me of faking the solves even tho I didnt. I might film a bunch of solves later proving that Waterman is a good method. I got a sub-10 earlier today off cam (I got scramble too DM me about that one). I am just trying to prove the solves werent faked.
I personally don't know Petrus, so I'm not going to get into this argument, but please don't say that I'm not "giving it a chance".
You havent YET. Or you havent idk. It would be nice to see it in the future. I tried it and zI suck at EO and I only know ~130 ZBLL
And what right do you have to state that? Do you think that you know him better than he knows himself?
Why would I think that lol. The guy just hit me up on discord and told me to stop so Ima stop.
 

V Achyuthan

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
310
Hi everyone.
I recently switched to Mehta from CFOP.
I am now sub-20 (ya I know I suck) with Mehta and I use intuitive APDR.
My goal is to become sub-12 by the end of the year.
Thank you all for your support.

These are today's/my first Ao100 with Mehta intuitive APDR.
PB = 11.59
PB Mo3 = 12.35
PB Ao5 = 14.15
PB Ao12 = 16.84
PB Ao25 = 18.38
PB Ao50 = 18.85
PB Ao100 = 19.55
 

DatWay

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
1
Location
Usa
Hi everyone.
I recently switched to Mehta from CFOP.
I am now sub-20 (ya I know I suck) with Mehta and I use intuitive APDR.
My goal is to become sub-12 by the end of the year.
Thank you all for your support.

These are today's/my first Ao100 with Mehta intuitive APDR.
PB = 11.59
PB Mo3 = 12.35
PB Ao5 = 14.15
PB Ao12 = 16.84
PB Ao25 = 18.38
PB Ao50 = 18.85
PB Ao100 = 19.55
mehta is horrible. Might as well use petrus instead since its better but it doesnt really matter cause you can be sub 10 with pretty much any method
 

V Achyuthan

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2020
Messages
310
thamks

gimme example solve of ur mehta
U2 F' R2 D' B2 F2 D' B2 R2 B2 D' R2 D' U L' B2 U' B' L' B2 L2
U L U L' D U2 R2 U' R' D'// FB
u' R' u' U2 R' u R2 U' R' U R' // Belt
F R U R' U' F' // EO
U2 R2 U2 R2 // 6CO-1
R D' R U2 R' D R' // 6CO-2
R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 D' M' U2 M // Intuitive APDR
U x' R2 D2 R' U' R D2 R' U R' // PLL

mehta is horrible. Might as well use petrus instead since its better but it doesnt really matter cause you can be sub 10 with pretty much any method
bro. petrus sucks. and FYI Jayden Mcneill the king of cubing knowledge and explanations has said Mehta has the potential to be one of the greatest methods.
 
Top