• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Which one is faster: ZZ or CFOP?

Which method is faster: ZZ-VH or CFOP?

  • ZZ-VH is faster

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • CFOP is faster

    Votes: 10 34.5%
  • None of them

    Votes: 17 58.6%

  • Total voters
    29
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pyjam

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,321
Location
La Baule, France
There's a difference between knowing a method and being able to perform it as proficiently as your 'main' method. (I can't believe this has to be pointed out to you)

This thread comes around every few months on this forum, it usually ends with me trying to explain to someone who doesn't quite understand the situation about how you cannot use statistics to show that one method is better than another.

Feel free to ignore my question about Waterman, I know thinking about the answer may make you question what you believe.
I use official results in competition to know who's the elite of this sport. What’s wrong?

The elite is supposed to find and try better methods and equipments. ZZ didn’t pop out last week and isn’t widely use by the elite. So either the elite is lazy or ZZ has been tried and rejected, I suppose.

I understood that you don’t share my opinion.

I know nothing about Waterman.
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
I use official results in competition to know who's the elite of this sport. What’s wrong?

The elite is supposed to find and try better methods and equipments. ZZ didn’t pop out last week and isn’t widely use by the elite. So either the elite is lazy or ZZ has been tried and rejected, I suppose.
Funny, ZZ is the newest 'mainstream' method.

I don't think you understand speedcubing very well, it's not like you can 'try' ZZ for a bit and see if it is better.

I know nothing about Waterman.
I guess you don't understand the question.

How about this;

If the top 20 averages were set with ZZ because no one gave CFOP a chance would you conclude that it was the best method?
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
vault312
The elite is supposed to find and try better methods and equipments.
ZZ and Roux were both developed by people who were not "elite." The designers at Dayan, Alpha, MF8, and V-Cubes are not elite solvers either. It is the job of the elite to be fast at solving.

ZZ didn’t pop out last week
You're right, it popped out in July of 2008, which is after most of the elite started cubing. And as Kirjava said, it is the newest "mainstream" method. Roux came out in 2003, and Petrus and CFOP are many decades old.

and isn’t widely use by the elite. So either the elite is lazy or ZZ has been tried and rejected, I suppose.
So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that may or may not eventually be faster makes me "lazy?"
 

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
vault312
Sorry I forget that this is the internet and morons will completely disregard what they know to be my intention in order to exploit a flaw in my wording. Allow me to rephrase: "So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that I may or may not eventually be faster with makes me 'lazy?'"
 

Pyjam

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,321
Location
La Baule, France
Funny, ZZ is the newest 'mainstream' method.

I don't think you understand speedcubing very well, it's not like you can 'try' ZZ for a bit and see if it is better.
I can't judge a method after a week but I'm confident that many in the top 20 can after a serious try.

I guess you don't understand the question.

How about this;

If the top 20 averages were set with ZZ because no one gave CFOP a chance would you conclude that it was the best method?
I'm not sure of the pertinence of your argument. I answered that it's unlikely that nobody in the top 20 has tried ZZ, because the top speedcubers know many methods and hundreds of algs, and they're are supposed to try new methods and adopt better ones.
Is it possible that ZZ is the new “mainstream method” but nobody among the bests has tried it seriously? Really? Maybe but it's unbelievable.

DavidWoner said:
ZZ and Roux were both developed by people who were not "elite." The designers at Dayan, Alpha, MF8, and V-Cubes are not elite solvers either. It is the job of the elite to be fast at solving.
There are always theoreticians. I meant, in a wide variety of disciplines, the elite keeps abreast of new methods.

Sorry I forget that this is the internet and morons will completely disregard what they know to be my intention in order to exploit a flaw in my wording. Allow me to rephrase: "So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that I may or may not eventually be faster with makes me 'lazy?'"
You said it. What was my intention?
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
I can't judge a method after a week but I'm confident that many in the top 20 can after a serious try.
You do not understand how speedcubing works. You cannot become as proficient as you are with your current method with a new one in a week.

I'm not sure of the pertinence of your argument. I answered that it's unlikely that nobody in the top 20 has tried ZZ, because the top speedcubers know many methods and hundreds of algs, and they're are supposed to try new methods and adopt better ones.
Is it possible that ZZ is the new “mainstream method” but nobody among the bests has tried it seriously? Really? Maybe but it's unbelievable.
So I see you're still scared to answer the question. Did you even read it?

I refuse to reiterate myself further.
 

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,378
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
RowanKinneavy
I can't judge a method after a week but I'm confident that many in the top 20 can after a serious try.
...they're are supposed to try new methods and adopt better ones.
The only judgement people in the top 20 will be making is 'this is a cool method but I'm already way too good at x to bother with practicing this instead'.

The opportunity cost of switching methods is far, far too high unless the method they're switching to is undeniably far better.
 

freshcuber

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
1,373
Location
Buffalo, New York
WCA
2011MURR02
Before your arguments were just stupid and poorly thought out but now you're starting to troll. The top twenty don't use ZZ because they were using Fridrich before ZZ was even thought of. If I spend even six months on a method I'm unlikely to take a chance and change it in the hopes I could maybe be faster. The top twenty can probably sub-15 a lot of methods with little effort but to sub-12, 11, or 10 a method takes A LOT more time. Would you switch methods if you were already sub-12 with Fridrich?

I don't know why you think the top twenty are lab rats that are supposed to test new things. Very few cubers know hundreds of algs for 3x3 speed. They also don't use many methods in competition. I can solve with two speed methods but I only practice one. The only cuber who uses multiple methods in competition is Statu Korick and he averages 16, not bad by any means but nowhere near top twenty.
 
Last edited:

Pyjam

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,321
Location
La Baule, France
Calm down, if you please. Some are becoming arrogant here. I ask questions, I would like explanation, and I receive condescending answers by people questioning my logic.

You do not understand how speedcubing works. You cannot become as proficient as you are with your current method with a new one in a week.

So I see you're still scared to answer the question. Did you even read it?

I refuse to reiterate myself further.
Did you read my answer? I can't answer you question because it supposes that nobody in the top 20 has given ZZ a real chance. It could be the case but I think it's unlikely. As the premise of your question is false, I have no answer.

The only judgement people in the top 20 will be making is 'this is a cool method but I'm already way too good at x to bother with practicing this instead'.

The opportunity cost of switching methods is far, far too high unless the method they're switching to is undeniably far better.
Thank you for your argued answer.
What if you knew someone (in the top 100) who becomes better after switching to ZZ? Could it convince you to switch? Maybe you already know one or more persons in this situation.
 

5BLD

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
3,179
Location
England
WCA
2011LAUA01
YouTube
5BLD
I believe it just depends on what suits you really... I am actually in the situation Pyjam mentioned, well kind of... I switched to Roux 2 months ago... Didn't cost me much- I wasn't too far with fridrich. If you hate your method, change it quick.
 
Last edited:

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,122
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
snkenjoi
Calm down, if you please. Some are becoming arrogant here. I ask questions, I would like explanation, and I receive condescending answers by people questioning my logic.
I've always been arrogant. I can't help but insult the verbal diarrhea you're inflicting on me.

Did you read my answer?
I don't see an answer to the question. You have to say that you agree or disagree with my statement.

I can't answer you question because it supposes that nobody in the top 20 has given ZZ a real chance. It could be the case but I think it's unlikely.
It *is* the case. You really don't understand what you're talking about.

As the premise of your question is false, I have no answer.
Think of it as a hypothetical.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
1,627
WCA
2010YUPH01
YouTube
asmallkitten
Don't have any answers to your terribly vague first question but I know from first hand experience that ZZ has a lot of potential for OH. And possibly feet.

As for your second question, probably none.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top