turtwig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2015
- Messages
- 656
Obviously. But what I said was that there were no good solvers, not that there are not many. From what I can tell, there are only a handful of Roux solvers in the top rankings of 2H, yet I believe that it is competitive with CFOP since I understand that there are fewer Roux users in general and adjust my expectations accordingly. When I asked for the fastest ZZ solvers, the examples given were Dale Palmares (who is currently ranked 634) and John Smith, who seems to have world class times at home, but seems to not have competed officially. If x% of people used ZZ and ZZ was better than CFOP, we would expect at least x ZZ solvers in the top 100 of the rankings (we assume talent is evenly distributed among the methods). And from the people on this forum, people on YouTube, etc., it seems like the proportion of ZZ solvers is much higher than 1%, yet John Smith is the only ZZ solver that could arguably place in the top 100. It's very hard to accurately estimate the proportion of ZZ users in the "population," so we could never know for sure whether ZZ is underrepresented in the top rankings, but in my estimation, it is.Now, there’s also way less people using ZZ than CFOP so there’s way less people who have the potential to get fast using it.
On top of that, the theoretical reasons that people say ZZ is better than CFOP are not that strong in my opinion. The idea is adding a few moves to your cross to get RUL gen F2L and 1LLL. On the surface, it is entirely possible that this trade off is worth it. But it is an entirely empirical question, and ZZ has failed to demonstrate, in my opinion, that the trade off is worth it. There are many examples of new methods being proven to be better. For example, there are many Roux solvers in the top rankings of OH and Ciaran and Janos are getting CRs with Yau on 6-7. I think this is what you would actually see if ZZ were better than CFOP - a few adventurous CFOP solvers would switch to ZZ with eocross, see their times drop significantly, and subsequently ZZ solvers would make up more and more of the top solvers. Yet this has not happened. And before it happens, people talking about ZZ are merely asserting that eocross is worth it. Apparently it took like 10 years to figure out that eocross is better than eoline, but now it's just obvious that with eocross, ZZ is competitive or even better than CFOP.
"I don't want to discuss, but here's 2 paragraphs on why you're wrong."I don't want to discuss, because you know I don't like to talk about this subject but I don't like that argument.
Last edited: