Roux, fridrich, or zz

[incessantcheese]

last post of the night:
no, see this is exactly what i mean. if you had someone like faz who mastered all three methods in three different parallel universes, the chance of him getting the exact same average time with all three methods is astronomically low. just as using beginner's method will give you a different time, using roux or fridrich will give you different average times. just because the difference may be small, say - half a second or one second, doesn't mean they're the same. it is extremely unlikely that all there methods are "equal". do you get what i'm trying to say now?

also depends on the scramble which is another quality that cannot be accounted for when considering the method.

the scramble has nothing to do with this. do you see my point, though? if super parallel world fazs all do an average of 10,000, they're going to end up with different average times. we don't know what those averages are, but it doesn't make sense to say that they'll be the same.

 

[incessantcheese]

Wow, interesting read after coming home from school... Can anyone say "flame wars FTW?" lol. Still, Fridrich.

argh. i'm not FLAMING, i'm trying to have a discussion while being called an idiot by kirjava over and over -_-

 

[Kirjava]

That's because you're an idiot.

You'll have trouble finding someone that disagrees with me.

 

[waffle=ijm]

last post of the night:
no, see this is exactly what i mean. if you had someone like faz who mastered all three methods in three different parallel universes, the chance of him getting the exact same average time with all three methods is astronomically low. just as using beginner's method will give you a different time, using roux or fridrich will give you different average times. just because the difference may be small, say - half a second or one second, doesn't mean they're the same. it is extremely unlikely that all there methods are "equal". do you get what i'm trying to say now?

also depends on the scramble which is another quality that cannot be accounted for when considering the method.

the scramble has nothing to do with this. do you see my point, though? if super parallel world fazs all do an average of 10,000, they're going to end up with different average times. we don't know what those averages are, but it doesn't make sense to say that they'll be the same.

and then? sure it doesn't make sense that they'll all be the same. The OP asked which is the best. There is no best method between the 3 so I said they're all equal since they have the potential to be fast. Then you drag this down to the last ****ing millisecond. And we still say there are non-accountable values that don't work for the every last ****ing decimal of the second. Overall however, you still end up with 3 potentially fast methods. Argument over why CFOP>Roux? Hell no. The idea with the multi-universal faz's was that it's the cuber, not the method. You'll still end up deviations between times. Yes, I agree. But I said they're equal in potential speed not in actual times and definitely not down to the last decimal of the second.

 

[PatrickJameson]

the scramble has nothing to do with this. do you see my point, though? if super parallel world fazs all do an average of 10,000, they're going to end up with different average times. we don't know what those averages are, but it doesn't make sense to say that they'll be the same.

The point that is trying to be made is that no one knows what those averages would be, and therefore your choice in method should be solely on which you feel you enjoy more. There's no evidence any method is faster than any other method, nor will we ever accurately be able to measure 'which method is faster'.

Obviously the current faster method is Fridrich, but that's mainly because more people are taught the LBL beginner's method in which there is an easy segway to full Fridrich(note that a "beginner's method" doesn't always mean LBL, as you assumed before).

ie. there's no argument to have.

 

[waffle=ijm]

Patrick raises his knee in satisfaction.

 

[Tyjet66]

That's because you're an idiot.

You'll have trouble finding someone that disagrees with me.

Kirjava, I see both you and incessantcheese making both valid points and points that are completely irrelevant, I both agree and disagree with both of you. I'm not going to elaborate or argue anything previously said; just thought I should let you know.

 

[incessantcheese]

And we still say there are non-accountable values that don't work for the every last ****ing decimal of the second. Overall however, you still end up with 3 potentially fast methods. Argument over why CFOP>Roux? Hell no. The idea with the multi-universal faz's was that it's the cuber, not the method. You'll still end up deviations between times. Yes, I agree. But I said they're equal in potential speed not in actual times and definitely not down to the last decimal of the second.

wait no see this is my point. it's impossible to ever do what we just suggested with faz or someone else, which is why it's impossible to prove one method is faster than another, but it doesn't make any sense at all to say that they'll be almost the same time.

i'm saying the deviations in time will most likely be as large as half a second or a second, not .001 seconds as you suggest. if you pick any random methods and have the same person master them, the spread of times could be huge, say, 3 seconds between one and another. the spread between roux and fridrich could easily be as big as half a second or one second. statistically, it is highly unlikely that zz, fridrich, and roux match up even to within .1 seconds from each other, just as it is unlikely three cubers of the same age will end up with the same average times if they all practiced for two years.

i agree with patrick's point in that it is impossible to prove one method is intrinsically faster than another, but i think it is just as valid to say that the fastest current method is, in fact fridrich. in fact, patrick refers to fridrich as "the current faster method" because it is not incorrect to call it that. the vast majority of fast cubers are using fridrich, and about the top 100 fastest cubers all use fridrich. in all practical terms, this means that right now, cfop = fastest method. arguing anything else without someone's average to back it up is about as useful as arguing that zbf2l is faster than cfop. maybe it is, but nobody's gotten it to be faster than cfop yet.

essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.

 

[Kirjava]

essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.

I'm ridiculing you for other things you have said, tyvm.

 

[incessantcheese]

essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.

I'm ridiculing you for other things you have said, tyvm.

okay, sure, but i've seen lots of instances where people were ridiculed for saying that fridrich is faster. i don't think there's anything wrong with saying that it is. i'm assuming you still don't want to agree with the point i'm trying to make? -_-

 

[Kirjava]

essentially, when people say fridrich is faster, this isn't a reason to ridicule them and call them an idiot.

I'm ridiculing you for other things you have said, tyvm.

okay, sure, but i've seen lots of instances where people were ridiculed for saying that fridrich is faster.

Show me.

i don't think there's anything wrong with saying that it is. i'm assuming you still don't want to agree with the point i'm trying to make? -_-

You've not listened to what I've said. If you have - you refuse to take it onboard. I really don't want to talk to you anymore.

 

[Vincents]

...Close this thread please.

 

[Tyjet66]

...Close this thread please.

+1

 

[y3k9]

...Close this thread please.

+1

why? and how?

 

[riffz]

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZB

Start memorizing.

 

[ElectricDoodie]

...Close this thread please.

+1

+1

Flame thread has gone on for a while.

 

[eastamazonantidote]

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZB

Start memorizing.

Or check my sig.

Roux and ZZ and Petrus haven't had the speed showing the Fridrich has had because Fridrich has more users. Simple enough. I personally think that a really great ZZer has the most potential and I also think of Roux as having more potential than Fridrich. Petrus has been around a long time and I believe it has peaked, just as I believe Fridrich will peak around a 7 second average.

 

[Edward]

@people saying to close this thread.

This discussion isn't that bad! I'm enjoying following it. It's only getting stale because people are being afraid to take risks! Got something to say? Well put it out there. The worst you can get back is a few harsh words :O.

 

[nitrocan]

Which do you think is best?

This is a pointless thread, which seems to be only here to start a flame war.

None is better than the other. The only difference is what people prefer to use/learn, depending on their own learning style/way their brains work.

There is no "one method is the best method."
There is no best method.

Methods depend on the person learning it.
Whatever is best for you, is best for you.

This is indeed pointless but im interested and other people might come here out of interest too. I am not a troll.

Thanks for clearing that up. Otherwise I would have assumed the exact opposite.

 

[uberCuber]

i actually just read all 16 pages of this thread. very entertaining. Certain people should just not bother trying to argue with kirjava...especially when they are that wrong