Should I use CFOP or ZZ?

[Burrito]

Hey all, I have a difficult decision to make.

Should I use ZZ or CFOP?


Reasons for ZZ:
Pros:
* I think it’s more fun than CFOP
* More flexibility for the last layer
* Generally luckier cases
* Only 7 OLLs (OCLL)
Cons:
* EOcross is hard
* Blind Spots

Reasons for CFOP:
Pros:
* Easier to get good at
* Proven to be good
Cons:
* Can get boring


What are your thoughts? LMK


– Burrito

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

I think ZZ is way cooler and I've been considering switching to it as soon as I get around to actually caring about cubing. EO cross is definitely the thing holding me back but if you can brute force through it, go for it! It's a lot of fun, unique, and has a wonderful LL with reasonable 1LLL potential.

 

[Swagrid]

Reasons for ZZ:
Pros:
* I think it’s more fun than CFOP

Open and closed. But, while we're at it.

* Blind Spots

??? with eocross???

Reasons for CFOP:
Pros:
* Easier to get good at

With more more than double the F2L and LL cases, it'd be impressive.

 

[OreKehStrah]

Like swagrid said, if you find ZZ more fun you should use ZZ. You’ll probably end up practicing more and get better times.

Using ZZ you can also learn more alg sets that are useful. ZBLL is 1LLL for ZZ without a pause between LS and LL so you can work on Zb prediction. Multislotting is a lot easier since you can learn entire MS sets.

Also I’m working on creating a comprehensive EOCross guide ; )

 

[Xnightslayer99]

Learning ZZ on its own is kinda hard because of the EO in the beginning. After i learned Petrus ZZ started to make more sense

 

[Burrito]

Like swagrid said, if you find ZZ more fun you should use ZZ. You’ll probably end up practicing more and get better times.

Using ZZ you can also learn more alg sets that are useful. ZBLL is 1LLL for ZZ without a pause between LS and LL so you can work on Zb prediction. Multislotting is a lot easier since you can learn entire MS sets.

Also I’m working on creating a comprehensive EOCross guide ; )

Thanks so much!!

 

[V Perm]

Thanks so much!!

use both.
(according to your signature)

 

[Thom S.]

I think it’s more fun than CFOP

Here's your answer.

 

[Tomtom2010]

I thin CFOP is better.

 

[BirdCubing]

I think you should use CFOP. A lot of great cubers use CFOP and they are really fast with it. It is also proven that there is a lot of regrips with ZZ also. But if it is more fun to use ZZ, use ZZ.

 

[LBr]

ZZ only has regrips is you do eoline as eocross doesn’t have R2 triggers. The main problem I notice with zz f2l is with some cases you should rotate and solve the case even when so is done and not rotating would allow for a less efficient solution. That really bothers me.

 

[Timona]

ZZ only has regrips is you do eoline as eocross doesn’t have R2 triggers. The main problem I notice with zz f2l is with some cases you should rotate and solve the case even when so is done and not rotating would allow for a less efficient solution. That really bothers me.

Rotating during ZZ F2L? Can you cite an example, I'm lost, cus I think one of the main points of ZZ is having rotationless F2L.

 

[Swagrid]

Rotating during ZZ F2L? Can you cite an example, I'm lost, cus I think one of the main points of ZZ is having rotationless F2L.

I think the point is that ZZ has some less efficient pair solutions due to not being able to rotate/misorient edges. I know for a fact that at least one of those cases exist. I'll have blind faith that there's probably a second.

 

[LBr]

Rotating during ZZ F2L? Can you cite an example, I'm lost, cus I think one of the main points of ZZ is having rotationless F2L.

I think that my point was misunderstood, I was only mentioning a disadvantage of having to not rotate in that it makes some cases less efficient. I think what swagrid said is similar to what I was trying to say. Also I can think of another ls case that is worse but we'll save that for later

 

[OreKehStrah]

Rotating during ZZ F2L? Can you cite an example, I'm lost, cus I think one of the main points of ZZ is having rotationless F2L.

No rotations are not that big of a deal as long as you aren’t doing excessive amounts. This is proven by data from CFOP solves.
There are times where I do rotation during ZZ F2L. Staying in old mindsets is how you get left behind (which is what happened to ZZ for years since mfs didn’t wanna accept EOCross for like a decade missing out on the chance to get fast). The point of ZZ F2L is that it reduces cases and eo makes deduction of pieces better so lookahead can improve and multislotting is more viable.

 

[joshsailscga]

There are times where I do rotation during ZZ F2L

How does that work? Doesn't a y or y' rotation mess up eo, thus turning your solve into CFOP-begun-with-a-restricted cross?
To my understanding that would happen with multislotting as well.

Maybe I am missing something but neither of those seem like they would be great options.

 

[OreKehStrah]

How does that work? Doesn't a y or y' rotation mess up eo, thus turning your solve into CFOP-begun-with-a-restricted cross?
To my understanding that would happen with multislotting as well.

Maybe I am missing something but neither of those seem like they would be great options.

For example, you can freely rotate to solve an edge in slot case. This is nice since you can convert left pairs to right pairs.
For multislotting, I’ll do y2 if the last 2 pairs are left pairs and do a righty MS alg.

 

[Burrito]

I think that my point was misunderstood, I was only mentioning a disadvantage of having to not rotate in that it makes some cases less efficient. I think what swagrid said is similar to what I was trying to say. Also I can think of another ls case that is worse but we'll save that for later

What I do sometimes is a d2 (quicker than y2)