Should methods actually be disciplines?

[Cassiopaia]

Hi guys.

Know what? I'm sick of having ideas of cool new speedsolving methods and then it turns out they're too slow so everyone keeps using CFOP.
Speedcubing is categorized into disciplines, but thoese disciplines are build around the cube and the user (3x3x3, 4x4x4, blindfolded, one-handed....)

What if we create additional categories but they're about the methods? Like in other sports. It's not about swimming 200 meters. It's about swimmung them in a particular style. People have to decide: Use CFOP in two-handed 3x3x3 or you'll likely not win. You love ZZ? Well, then decide wether you want to win OR use your favorite method.

If however there were different 3x3x3 categories, then you could use the method you love, and you can win by being the best in it without some CFOP user winning ageinst you just by using a more powerful method. You can be proud of being a good high jump athlete without some pole jump athlete stealing your gold. Let both methods have their own gold medal instead! That's totally normal in sports, but for some reason speedcubing has a blind spot here it seems.

But actually, that would totally boost speedcubing! Imagine athletes of dozens of different cool methods being proud of being good in their many desciplines, not just a small hand full of disciplines where one-handed means Roux or lose, and two-handed means CFOP or lose. Instead there can be dozens of two-handed 3x3x3 winners, everyone winning in a different 3x3x3 discipline. Think of it: A ZZ solver, a Roux solver and a CFOP solver walking into a bar - in total respect and sportsmanship over their championship each in his own discipline. CFOP is faster than ZZ? Well, bicicling is faster than running. So what? Let's celebrate the different methods as different disciplines and celebrate each in it's own respect.

Of course, freestyle would still be there, where everyone can compete with everyone just as it is now. But in addition every method would have it's own kingdom too, based on core principles of the method. And think about Rubik biathlon or triathlon

What do you think?

 

[PetrusQuber]

Hi guys.

Know what? I'm sick of having ideas of cool new speedsolving methods and then it turns out they're too slow so everyone keeps using CFOP.
Speedcubing is categorized into disciplines, but thoese disciplines are build around the cube and the user (3x3x3, 4x4x4, blindfolded, one-handed....)

What if we create additional categories but they're about the methods? Like in other sports. It's not about swimming 200 meters. It's about swimmung them in a particular style. People have to decide: Use CFOP in two-handed 3x3x3 or you'll likely not win. You love ZZ? Well, then decide wether you want to win OR use your favorite method.

If however there were different 3x3x3 categories, then you could use the method you love, and you can win by being the best in it without some CFOP user winning ageinst you just by using a more powerful method. You can be proud of being a good high jump athlete without some pole jump athlete stealing your gold. Let both methods have their own gold medal instead! That's totally normal in sports, but for some reason speedcubing has a blind spot here it seems.

But actually, that would totally boost speedcubing! Imagine athletes of dozens of different cool methods being proud of being good in their many desciplines, not just a small hand full of disciplines where one-handed means Roux or lose, and two-handed means CFOP or lose. Instead there can be dozens of two-handed 3x3x3 winners, everyone winning in a different 3x3x3 discipline. Think of it: A ZZ solver, a Roux solver and a CFOP solver walking into a bar - in total respect and sportsmanship over their championship each in his own discipline. CFOP is faster than ZZ? Well, bicicling is faster than running. So what? Let's celebrate the different methods as different disciplines and celebrate each in it's own respect.

Of course, freestyle would still be there, where everyone can compete with everyone just as it is now. But in addition every method would have it's own kingdom too, based on core principles of the method. And think about Rubik biathlon or triathlon

What do you think?

I think it’s a cool idea, but it would be hard to actually implement in official competitions. Judges would struggle to identify methods accurately, especially if there are any skips or method variations during solves.

 

[Swagrid]

Just using zz in the cfop event and telling my judge I happened to get rotationless F2L

 

[Renslay]

What happens when I start with Roux, accidentally finish F2L after I built F2B and I switch to OLL/PLL.
What happens when I use Winter Variation in CFOP.
What happens when I use ZZ in CFOP.
What happens when I build 1x2x3 -> 2x2x3 instead of 2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 in Petrus.
What happens when I use ABP instead of Petrus.
What happens when I start with CFOP but switch to 8355 mid-solve.
What happens when I use CEOR or LEOR instead of Petrus.
What happens when I use Roux instead of Waterman.
What happens when I use XCross in CFOP.
What happens when I use so much X...XCross combined with EO in CFOP that it becomes Petrus.

The definition between methods can be blurry. For this idea you have to define the EXACT way how one can solve the cube, what algorithms they can use; and then somehow figure out how to check if these rules are applied during solve.

This feels like not a "200 meter butterfly" vs "200 meter backstroke" classification, more like a "200 meter swimming with more power on the legs" vs "more power on the arms" classification.

 

[Cassiopaia]

You are right, it's tricky. But i believe we have to see two sides here:

-if it works, is it a good thing?
-how can we make it work?

I think we can all agree that it is good when it works.

I think we also agree that it is tricky to make it work.

So let's think about how it can be done in a feasible way

Maybe we should define just core elements. Like columns first discipline or blockbuilding diszipline or cross discipline. Or even end with a last layer discipline. What do you think?

 

[Renslay]

Maybe we should define just core elements. Like columns first discipline or blockbuilding diszipline or cross discipline. Or even end with a last layer discipline. What do you think?

Although I understand and value the sentiment, it's still tricky. For example: cross vs block building: you cannot truly separate them, because XCross (and XXCross, etc) belongs to both. There are so many ways you can build a 2x2x3, which is the first step of many methods (yes, including CFOP if you use XXCross):
- 1x2x3 first
- 2x2x2 first
- 3/4 cross first
- belt first
- freestyle block building

And since it is a first step in usually 8-15 moves, it can vary greatly how you do it even if the rest of your solve is pretty much fixed (e.g., you continue with Petrus). If you let that go, then restricting only the second half of a solve makes little sense too. How do you define "last layer"? CF vs Roux vs CFOP, they all use different things for last step. And some last steps can be merged. But not all the times; for example, not all ZBLL has the same difficulty, so people who knows ZBLL often chose OLL+PLL finish, or COLL+EPLL.

The problem is very similar to music categories. Yes, some music is clearly rock. Some is clearly classic. Or jazz. But then you find something that is... both? Neither? First half this, second half that? Jazz containing classic elements, or classic containing jazz?

Again, I value the sentiment, and this is something that on paper sounds good, but I'm afraid it stops there. Or you end up relying on people saying "I swear I won't use block building techniques during my F2L, and won't force OLL skip with last-insertion algs."

 

[Cassiopaia]

I understand the problems you're pointing out. And you definitely have a point there. However, don't get me wrong but i personally would like to see more "how can we make it work" and less "why can it not work". New approaches need new ways of thinking. How do karate and tae-kwon-do get separated? Because there is a set of moves you're allowed and not allowed to do. What clearly separates Roux and CFOP? What could a ROUX user do that leads to it not being ROUX anymore? What if we say (that's just an example): If there are at least [number] M-slice moves during the solve it's Roux and not CFOP? Or at least three D-layer-edges need to be solved before three pairs of the D- and E- layer are solved to be accepted as a CFOP solve?
Thank you for your constructice critique, I just want us to see both the problems and think about how we could possibly solve them