why is cfop "the best method"

[gateway cuber]

ha. ha. ha. *cough cough like in roux Ahem*
Roux is even freer than in CFOP. Just look at some roux example solves.[/QUOTEI]
I know roux, I'm sub 20 with it, I also know ZZ I'm lik~15 secs with it,but no matter how much I practice those 2 I will never be faster with them than CFOP. Another thing I like about cfop is the TPS, not that ZZ doesn't have goo tps but EOline can be rough sometimes.

 

[Teoidus]

hm i think it is mostly this way

given some concept of "best" and a set of methods, there exists a ranking from best to worst

people have different concepts of best

it's also very annoying to find said ranking, maybe not that hard but nobody really gives enough of a ****/would be able to get other people to give enough of a **** to actually run tests

the only "data set" that we have are the times people get/record/post online, but those are hardly clean samples to derive conclusions from. the only significant result we can get from these is that something is "possible" (it's possible to sub-7 roux, and it's also possible to sub-7 CFOP). You can't really rule out the possibility of a sub-7 ZZ user on grounds that "it hasn't happened yet" (sorry, we haven't been to mars yet. it's just not going to happen guys. so many people have tried and are even still trying as we speak and nothing's really succeeded. i think our best bet is to just throw in the towel. lol let alone get to the moon, can you imagine how ridiculous a concept that is? i bet even if we had our best scientists working on that we couldn't get th- oh wait ****, nvm)

so when a new cuber comes on and looks at all the methods available and asks which he should choose, the response is that "methods don't have speeds" and that he should "choose the one he likes the most", which is not to say anything about whether or not some methods are objectivity better than others. it's simply a reasonable assumption to make that whoever's asking this question on a speedsolving forum might have a goal of improving his times, and given the difficulty of determining an objective best (or even a concept of best really) the pragmatic mindset to take really is that, of a set of methods like the big 4, it's a much better choice to spend time improving with one method than it is to spend time waffling about choosing the "fastest" one

 

[GenTheSnail]

because you never really have to think, u just have to look and react and memorize and repeat.

This sounds like what I do with ZZ.
Unless I get a really nice combination of blocks, I can try and figure out how to solve them best.
But that's equivalent to xcross.

 

[Ayman]

Well, if you don't enjoy doing something then don't do it (at least when it comes to cubing).

I mean I don't think there are many if any "competitive" speedcubers who don't do it for fun. Most would fall under the category of "casual" cubers who just so happen to be fast/good at it.

Also, I'm pretty sure he meant with a method which could be used to get fast if you wanted to and there are obvious restrictions to what methods that includes but overall you can pick the one from a handful of methods that you feel most comfortable with because you will likely want to practise more or improve fastest using it.

So what if you feel most comfortable with old pochmann? Comfort is only for casual cubers. Competitive speedcubers would obviously choose the fastest method e.g. CFOP

Thanks, shadowslice for understanding me. And also sorry sajwo if i didnt convince you with my opinion. But i meant that the one you feel most efficient with, because you know god hasnt made everybody the same... But yes, I also think that CFOP has the ability to be the most fastest...

 

[1001010101001]

Roux - Good for 3x3x3
CFOP- good for everything but 3x3x3.

 

[GenTheSnail]

Roux - Good for 3x3x3
CFOP- good for everything but 3x3x3.

Please don't

This discussion is a year old.
Let it die
It's not fun arguing after a point


you didn't even give any arguments or explain why CFOP has held and holds so many WRs that it's good for everything but 3x3

 

[Spencer131]

Roux - Good for 3x3x3
CFOP- good for everything but 3x3x3.

Roux is good for OH and feet. It's also good for big cubes if you have magnets and can do m slices properly

 

[shadowslice e]

Roux is good for OH and feet. It's also good for big cubes if you have magnets and can do m slices properly

Please don't

This discussion is a year old.
Let it die
It's not fun arguing after a pointand holds so many WRs that it's good for everything but 3x3

 

[cubing master]

CFOP is so much easier to get fast at because everybody uses it. with Roux and ZZ, you have to find little tricks on your own, but with CFOP, everything is done for you, so there is not much you have to figure out yourself.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Roux is good for feet.

???????¿¿¿?¿?¿??

 

[Duncan Bannon]

I think he means rotations and low move count.

???????¿¿¿?¿?¿??

 

[Sue Doenim]

I think he means rotations and low move count.

I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?

 

[Spencer131]

I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?

Like someone else said, the low movecount is the main advantage. I do have some pretty good lse toe tricks

 

[Cubed Cuber]

I've thought about it, but M-slices seem like a no go. Any feasible way to, ahem, toetrick them?

And also, since when did a cuber have long enough middle toe and long enough fourth toe to do M and M2 slices?

 

[1001010101001]

Yay we invented a new word! Toetricking!

 

[Sue Doenim]

Like someone else said, the low movecount is the main advantage. I do have some pretty good lse toe tricks

Like, actually? How do you do Ms?

 

[Cubed Cuber]

M': use your big toe to do the move and the rest of the toes to hold down the cube.

 

[1001010101001]

M': ue your big toe to do the move and the rest of the toes to hold down the cube.

Good idea.

 

[Cubed Cuber]

random question: what do you mean 3x3x3: 3.2(CFOP)?
does it mean that your record is 3.2 secs or 3.2 mins or 32 secs?

 

[JustinTimeCuber]

It's not.
Sincerely, a CFOP user for 5+ years.