The method debate thread

[Owen Morrison]

idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.

Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
Ergonomics
- Moveset: ZZ = CFOP (both methods are RUL)
- Cube Rotations: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ has no cube rotations)
- Regrips: ZZ > CFOP (If you use EOCross ZZ has better regrips cuz CFOP has Cube Rotations)
Look Ahead
- Pieces Solved: ZZ = CFOP (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)
- Blind Spots = (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)

If you still think that CFOP is better than ZZ then you're just ignorant.

I'm sorry but this is so messed up.

 

[LukasCubes]

My top 3 methods in order

1. CFOP
2. ZB
3. Russo


Yes I think ZB and Russo is better that Roux and ZZ.

 

[PetraPine]

idk why people still think CFOP is the best method the move count is so high and ergonomics is terrible with CFOP, I use ZZ however I think roux is the best method cuz of how efficient the method is. The reason why I don't use roux is cuz i want to prouve that ZZ is a good method and I want to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP. If you think about it ZZ is better than CFOP.

Move Count: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ 44 with ZBLL and 55 with OCLL/PLL) (CFOP ~60 moves)
Ergonomics
- Moveset: ZZ = CFOP (both methods are RUL)
- Cube Rotations: ZZ > CFOP (ZZ has no cube rotations)
- Regrips: ZZ > CFOP (If you use EOCross ZZ has better regrips cuz CFOP has Cube Rotations)
Look Ahead
- Pieces Solved: ZZ = CFOP (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)
- Blind Spots = (If you use EOCross or XEOCross)

If you still think that CFOP is better than ZZ then you're just ignorant.

ZZ is not 44 moves with ZBLL that is straight false(unless you use EOLINE)((than its maybe ~46)) its more like 50~
both methods are not R U L lol CFOP is R U x for most cases
also you dont seem to mention anything about actual steps,
EOcross(not the method just the step)((the method is better than line)) is really bad.
pieces solved are not equal you can lookahead farther into cfop(this is more complicated but that statement is false if you are talking about direct pieces)
the method isnt even that efficient
roux is more efficient, petrus is also more efficient(about you saying the method bieng so efficient)

My top 3 methods in order

1. CFOP
2. ZB
3. Russo


Yes I think ZB and Russo is better that Roux and ZZ.

The reason Russo is bad
-advantage(russo has L5E instead of L6E((L5E can be algoritmized))((but so can L6))
-disadvantages:
The blockbuilding for russo is much more awkward since it is more similar to that of petrus which has less ergonomic blocks,
it is less efficient,lookahead is harder imo because 223+extension+2 pairs is the only thing that is somewhat efficient((doing fb sb cmll back edge is just worse lse)
and compared to doing FB,SB its overly complicated and there are more blind spots.
for ZB
ZB is kinda hard to understand why its worse but heres my explanation:
Doing LS LL while you do OLL PLL(or ZBLL if you get it) is faster
its the same reason we dont use VHLS very much,recognition is not worth the amount of efficiency gained, if you look at like tao yus ZB solves there is a huge pause in the middle due to this.
My list:
Roux
Cfop+ZBLL/good 1lll cases
ZZ-A
Petrus
ZB
LeoR
HK
Russo

 

[LukasCubes]

The reason Russo is bad
-advantage(russo has L5E instead of L6E((L5E can be algoritmized))((but so can L6))
-disadvantages:
The blockbuilding for russo is much more awkward since it is more similar to that of petrus which has less ergonomic blocks,
it is less efficient,lookahead is harder imo because 223+extension+2 pairs is the only thing that is somewhat efficient((doing fb sb cmll back edge is just worse lse)
and compared to doing FB,SB its overly complicated and there are more blind spots.
for ZB
ZB is kinda hard to understand why its worse but heres my explanation:
Doing LS LL while you do OLL PLL(or ZBLL if you get it) is faster
its the same reason we dont use VHLS very much,recognition is not worth the amount of efficiency gained, if you look at like tao yus ZB solves there is a huge pause in the middle due to this.
My list:
Roux
Cfop+ZBLL/good 1lll cases
ZZ-A
Petrus
ZB
LeoR
HK
Russo

i understand what you are saying. CFOP, ZB, and Russo is just my opinion for the top 3.

 

[PetraPine]

i understand what you are saying. CFOP, ZB, and Russo is just my opinion for the top 3.

how can you have an "opinion" on a top 3 best methods if you have no evidence supporting them bieng the fastest?

 

[RiceMan_]

ZZ is not 44 moves with ZBLL that is straight false(unless you use EOLINE)((than its maybe ~46)) its more like 50~
both methods are not R U L lol CFOP is R U x for most cases
also you dont seem to mention anything about actual steps,
EOcross(not the method just the step)((the method is better than line)) is really bad.
pieces solved are not equal you can lookahead farther into cfop(this is more complicated but that statement is false if you are talking about direct pieces)
the method isnt even that efficient
roux is more efficient, petrus is also more efficient(about you saying the method bieng so efficient)

When did I say ZZ is efficient, I said roux is efficient and I even said roux is the best method and I only use ZZ to prouve that ZZ is better than CFOP.

 

[PetraPine]

When did I say ZZ is efficient, I said roux is efficient not ZZ.

you said with ZBLL it was 44 moves AND called roux more efficient? both of those are wrong
roux is like ~49 and ZZ-A is like ~51

 

[RiceMan_]

you said with ZBLL it was 44 moves AND called roux more efficient? both of those are wrong
roux is like ~49 and ZZ-A is like ~51

Go on speedsolving wiki and look at the move count of ZZ its 44 with ZBLL you even said yourself that roux is more efficient than ZZ so idk what you mean.

 

[PetraPine]

Go on speedsolving wiki and look at the move count of ZZ its 44 with ZBLL you even said yourself that roux is more efficient than ZZ so idk what you mean.

speedsolving wiki is a bad source and is wrong
ask people who actually use ZZ
it say Petrus is 50 moves which is totally off,
if you ACTUALLY do splits for yourself you will undestand this fact,
with ZBLL
ZZ is ~51 and petrus is around ~45-44
@RadicalMacaroni help

 

[RiceMan_]

speedsolving wiki is a bad source and is wrong
ask people who actually use ZZ
it say Petrus is 50 moves which is totally off,
if you ACTUALLY do splits for yourself you will undestand this fact,
with ZBLL
ZZ is ~51 and petrus is around ~45-44
@RadicalMacaroni help

You don't even use ZZ and you probably don't even know a thing about the method so idk why you're even arguing about the movecount. With ZBLL ZZ HAS LESS THAN 50 MOVE GO CHECK PAPASMURF'S VIDEO.

 

[PetraPine]

You don't even use ZZ and you probably don't even know a thing about the method so idk why you're even arguing about the movecount.

I know people that do lol,
and they've said that
litterally the fastest ZZ user said that
also i do use the method,
im sub 11 with it

You don't even use ZZ and you probably don't even know a thing about the method so idk why you're even arguing about the movecount. With ZBLL ZZ HAS LESS THAN 50 MOVE GO CHECK PAPASMURF'S VIDEO.

what video,also i was talking about radical macoroni not papasmurf(rad is faster)((no offense to papasmurf btw he's really fast))
edit: @RiceMan_ IT LITTERALLY SAYS EOCROSS VARIANT IS 53.5 MOVES IN HIS VIDEO AND XEOCROSS IS 50.5 SO YOU ARE WRONG UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LINE WHICH IS NO

 

[LukasCubes]

This entire conversation is messed up

 

[RiceMan_]

I know people that do lol,
and they've said that
litterally the fastest ZZ user said that
also i do use the method,
im sub 11 with it


what video,also i was talking about radical macoroni not papasmurf(rad is faster)((no offense to papasmurf btw he's really fast))
edit: @RiceMan_ IT LITTERALLY SAYS EOCROSS VARIANT IS 53.5 MOVES IN HIS VIDEO AND XEOCROSS IS 50.5 SO YOU ARE WRONG UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LINE WHICH IS NO

its 44 moves with EOLine with EOCross it would be more.
And if you watch Jperm's video (CFOP, ROUX, ZZ comparison) he sais that ZZ has a movecount of 45-55 moves.


Edit: whether its 44 or 50 moves ZZ still has a lower mouve count than CFOP.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Calm down everyone.
ZZ with EOCross is about 50-55 moves. The stats on the wiki are for EOLine.
If you want to reread my post about ZZ>CFOP (but it's quite close), follow this link: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-method-debate-thread.76665/post-1372453

 

[abunickabhi]

I think method neutrality for the 3x3 can end the debate. No need to go for one method when you can adapt and do some of them simulataneously.

I do Roux+CFOP.

 

[RiceMan_]

I think method neutrality for the 3x3 can end the debate. No need to go for one method when you can adapt and do some of them simulataneously.

I do Roux+CFOP.

maybe ill do roux+zz

 

[Spacey10]

What about TPS dr CFOP? I guess you can get high tps with ZZ, but CFOP can get 7 consistently.

 

[Sub1Hour]

This entire conversation is messed up

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[PapaSmurf]

What about TPS dr CFOP? I guess you can get high tps with ZZ, but CFOP can get 7 consistently.

You can do that with ZZ too.

 

[PetraPine]

What about TPS dr CFOP? I guess you can get high tps with ZZ, but CFOP can get 7 consistently.

you could consistently get like 9+ tps if you are inneficient with either actually.
acounting for everything i think the methods have very simular TPS limits