• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

The method debate thread

PapaSmurf said:
Facts:
TH - ZZ=Roux=>CFOP (depends on how many algs you know)>LEOR=>Petrus (not sure how confident I am on this one).
Click to expand...

The Facts:

For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented before ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.
 
Scollier said:
The Facts:

For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented before ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.
Click to expand...
Cfop is just a ripoff of lbl which is a ripoff of corners first so obviously corners first is the best using your stupid logic,
also I didnt know you could combine every bad argument and put it into one post hmm...
 
Scollier said:
The Facts:

For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented before ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.
Click to expand...
that is trash logic. I agree with you but I mean what did you have going on in your head there
 
ObscureCuber said:
because corners first was before it(also im saying by his logic)
which would make it a ripoff of cf
(which is what he was saying about ZZ)
Click to expand...
Yeah but Corners First and LBL aren't similar besides being solving methods.
Obviously Scollier's argument doesn't really make sense but your logic was even worse.
 
fun at the joy said:
Yeah but Corners First and LBL aren't similar besides being solving methods.
Obviously Scollier's argument doesn't really make sense but your logic was even worse.
Click to expand...
Im making fun of his logic explaining the falisy it isnt MY logic im showing why HIS logic doesnt make since,
he said ZZ was a ripoff of cfop because Cfop was OLDER,
so by that logic LBL is a ripoff of CF because CF is OLDER
 
isnt corners first solving the corners, then the edges?
LBL is about solving the edges, then corners, then do the edges for the second layer, and do the edge on the last layer, then fix the corners.
These are different steps, so no, LBL is not a ripoff of corners first.

Scollier said:
The Facts:

For TH, first of all, CFOP was invented before ZZ, and the methods are very similar with the block building and LL, so ZZ is just copying CFOP. Second of all, the facts are that the current WR, and many before that were set using CFOP, so obviously the facts are that CFOP > ZZ.
Click to expand...
what the heck, i guess your right about zz being a ripoff of cfop, as it took cfops idea, and decided to make it so it has less to no rotations. But the wr stuff is dumb. That argument is not really good, you can make a better argument by saying that zz has many regrips or something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nir1213 said:
what the heck, i guess your right about zz being a ripoff of cfop, as it took cfops idea, and decided to make it so it has less to no rotations. But the wr stuff is dumb. That argument is not really good, you can make a better argument by saying that zz has many regrips or something.
Click to expand...
Well by that logic we should use room-size computers from the early 60's since our modern ones are rip offs
 
My opinions on popular methods for each event

2x2
EG is best. CLL is a good subset of EG that is almost as good, and it has less algs.

3x3:
- CFOP is good, it emphasizes TPS and has great lookahead. Its main weakness is efficiency.
- Roux is at least as good as CFOP, if not better. I am switching to Roux because I think it has more potential. Blockbuilding in Roux is much more efficient than CFOP F2L, and CMLL+LSE is more efficient than OLL/PLL (although it's usually slower because of the M moves).
- Pure ZZ is objectively worse than CFOP, however ZZ-cross might have potential, but I don't know enough about it to say much.
- Petrus is good for FMC. But for speedsolving it's simply worse compared to CFOP, Roux or ZZ. Efficiency is remarkable but there's too much thinking required.

4x4:
Yau is best for CFOP users, Meyer for Roux users

5x5:
For CFOP users, redux and yau are about as good as each other. Yau has better lookahead for edges, redux has more efficient centers
For Roux users just use redux, meyer on 5x5 sucks imo

6x6+:
redux

pyra:
L4E and top-first methods are equally good

mega:
westlund and da-hyun methods are the same basically. balint is more efficient than westlund, but lookahead is harder

square-1:
vandenbergh has easier lookahead and is algorithmic, lin is more efficient and has more blockbuilding

skewb:
skewb is dumb bc it's just spamming sledge and hedge smh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Poll Poll
3 Blind Method Debate Thread
2 3
Replies
46
Views
8,774
Silky
S
Roux
  • Poll Poll
Cubing method debate.
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2,880
KubikPanda
KubikPanda
S
Quantitative Method Analysis
Replies
16
Views
3,515
Silky
S
Christopher Mowla
Is the "Yau Method" Actually the "Jameson Method"? (Debate)
2
Replies
39
Views
6,756
mookiemu
M
Sub1Hour
  • Poll Poll
OH Method Debate
16 17 18
Replies
350
Views
36,112
Nir1213
Nir1213
Back
Top