# Petrus, just as good as Fridrich



## KConny (Dec 16, 2008)

Petrus is just as good as Fridrich, and I have proof!

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=1982FRID01
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=1982PETR01


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 16, 2008)

KConny said:


> Petrus is just as good as Fridrich, and I have proof!
> 
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=1982FRID01
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=1982PETR01



So I think that I'm going to state the obvious and note that these two really aren't that good. I mean I'm nearly as fast as Lars now, and I'm not even sub 20 yet. 

On the other hand, I do think improving with Petrus is harder, and that Fridrich is an easier method, but I take pride in not taking what I consider the easy road, and sticking with my method, and earning my way towards that sub 20 Petrus title thats just so schnazzy =].


----------



## jcuber (Dec 16, 2008)

What happened to her 2nd solve at the Cornell Spring 2007? 34.38?! Her other solves were around 20s each!


----------



## Jhong253 (Dec 16, 2008)

What's the proof??? That's only two people.


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 16, 2008)

****TIE BREAKER****

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?allResults=All+Results&competitionId=WC1982

petrus wins


----------



## Athefre (Dec 16, 2008)

jhong253 said:


> What's the proof??? That's only two people.



Look at the average of Jessica Fridrich, then look at the average of Lars Petrus. Does anything about them stand out?


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 16, 2008)

Lars is terrible at speedsolving, Ill give you that. He really has not improved a tiny bit since the friggin 80's. But then again I doubt he really tries. And I have to think that comparing any methods based on 2 solvers is really not going to create any legitimate conclusion. 

Another thing, isn't it obvious that there are more "good" fridrich solvers than anything? 

...and then comes up that same old dumb argument;

Person 1: Why do you think there are so many more Fridrich solvers?
Person 2/me: Because it's mindless and the easiest way for the human mind to comprehend.....
Person 1: Why do you think there are so many more sub 20 people?
Person 2/me: Didn't I already give you an answer to that question?
Person 3: Blah blah blah some worthless crap that's been said a million times before
Person 4: What's Petrus? DUUURRRRR
Person 2/me: I hate you/die.
..........................................................thread dies sometime..............................another one is made...................................repeat the process,


----------



## SajberPinGu (Dec 16, 2008)

You people have no sense of humor?
For jhong253:
The creaters of the two method have the exact same average if you didnt notice, its called funny.


----------



## brunson (Dec 16, 2008)

ErikJ said:


> ****TIE BREAKER****
> 
> http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?allResults=All+Results&competitionId=WC1982
> 
> petrus wins


Really? I think Guus uses Fridrich.

Anyway, if you want definitive proof here it is:

Google:

"fridrich sucks" - 8 results
"fridrich rules" - No results
"petrus rules" - 69 results
"petrus sucks" - 99 results

8-0 for Fridrich, 69-99 for Petrus, therefore Fridrich rules, Petrus sucks.

Undeniable proof. ;-)

I realize this post, indeed the entire thread, is facetious, anyone that doesn't should get their humor unit inspected.


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 16, 2008)

brunson said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > ****TIE BREAKER****
> ...



CLL / ELL with cross F2L, not exactly Fridrich.


----------



## shelley (Dec 16, 2008)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Lars is terrible at speedsolving, Ill give you that. He really has not improved a tiny bit since the friggin 80's. But then again I doubt he really tries. And I have to think that comparing any methods based on 2 solvers is really not going to create any legitimate conclusion.



It's a freaking joke.

And who cares if they're terrible at speedsolving? Most of you wouldn't be where you are had it not been for the work pioneered by those two.


----------



## Kian (Dec 16, 2008)

I can't believe people don't just see the humor in this and move on. It was clearly not a serious post, just an interesting observation. And, in fact, his statement is correct, Fridrich (jessica, not the method) is just as good as Petrus (lars, not the method), in competition.

the lack of humor understood in this thread is terrifying.


----------



## Erik (Dec 16, 2008)

That's a cool fact! How could we have missed that xD
I'll put my money on Petrus though since he goes to more competitions it seems


----------



## CanadianPires (Dec 16, 2008)

and then in swoops Mr. Roux to settle the debate,

winner.. Roux method lol

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2004ROUX01


----------



## Escher (Dec 16, 2008)

how come ryan heise hasnt competed? i'd imagine he'd be a beast at FMC, even if his speedsolving wasnt awesome...


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 16, 2008)

haha thats awesome. Thanks for finding this Daniel, and I'm sorry that so many people are too thick to realize that this is just meant to be funny.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 16, 2008)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> And I have to think that comparing any methods based on 2 solvers is really not going to create any legitimate conclusion.


Did the first post or title say anything about methods?


----------



## KConny (Dec 17, 2008)

I got quite surprised no one had ever noticed this before. Jessica got her average in 2003 and Lars in april 26, 2008. But I guess neither Jessica nor Lars checks the rankings.

I read the article in NY Times where Jessica stated that here times today would only place her in top 30 or some thing. Then I looked at here profile and saw she was at 623 so as I normaly do I wanted to see who is about the same average, and BAM (Haha, Dennis' favourite word ) there he was, Lars.

And yeah, it is just a funny observation. Thanks to those who understood.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 17, 2008)

Hmm, the fastest method I can think of is Makisumi-Garron Last Slot ;-)

That's a really cool observation though, KConny. What's the chance they would ever tie?


----------



## Jhong253 (Dec 26, 2008)

None of it is any proof. DO you really want to do some statistical analysis to it? You know, there are also plenty of people around who use fridrich and are no where near where Lars is. Same applies to people who use Petrus too, of course. Chance of scrambles being better for one method better than the other is involved too. Comparing just Fridrich and Petrus (I mean the people, not the method) isn't good enough (I don't want to go into all statistical detail)


----------



## joey (Dec 26, 2008)

jhong253 said:


> Comparing just Fridrich and Petrus (I mean the people, not the method) isn't good enough (I don't want to go into all statistical detail)


Wow, you totally missed the point of the first post.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 26, 2008)

Haha, nice find!

(also, I lol'd at some posts in this thread that thought this was actually a comparison between methods .)


----------



## tim (Dec 26, 2008)

jhong253 said:


> None of it is any proof. DO you really want to do some statistical analysis to it? You know, there are also plenty of people around who use fridrich and are no where near where Lars is. Same applies to people who use Petrus too, of course. Chance of scrambles being better for one method better than the other is involved too. Comparing just Fridrich and Petrus (I mean the people, not the method) isn't good enough (I don't want to go into all statistical detail)



Could you please use your brain before posting? Thanks!


----------



## (X) (Dec 26, 2008)

jhong ,the guy tried to funny(he was too), not to say anything about which method is the best


----------



## guusrs (Dec 26, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > ErikJ said:
> ...


WC 1982 proofs corners-first is the best speedsolving method: 1st & 3th place!

And at that same WC I used Fridrich for F2L, Fridrich did not!

Gus


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 26, 2008)

Oh my god...that's so weird!


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 27, 2008)

guusrs said:


> And at that same WC I used Fridrich for F2L, Fridrich did not!
> 
> Gus



Quote taken from Fridrich's page:



> The first prize was a plane ticket to Budapest to the first World Championship.
> [...]Later in 1982, *I changed my F2L system to the current system.* Before, I would do the first layer and then insert two cubies from the last layer into the middle layer. I developed the algorithms and also algorithms that moved / flipped the cubies in the middle layer.



"Fridrich F2L" wasn't invented by Fridrich, of course.


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 27, 2008)

She should only be credited for creating the algorithms for every case for the FOP of CFOP. I remember reading somewhere in a post that OLL and PLL wasn't originally Fridrich's idea either.


----------



## blah (Dec 27, 2008)

Well actually if you wanna put it that way, then she really isn't worth being credited much, since no one today uses any of her original OLL/PLL algs


----------



## ImNOTnoob (Dec 27, 2008)

Well, her algs are not that finger trick friendly..
I really didn't enjoy her algs.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 27, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> She should only be credited for creating the algorithms for every case for the FOP of CFOP. I remember reading somewhere in a post that OLL and PLL wasn't originally Fridrich's idea either.



I think Mike and Kenneth uses her H-perm.


----------



## IamWEB (Dec 27, 2008)

So pretty soon I'll be sub-Fridrich right?


----------



## brunson (Dec 27, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> She should only be credited for creating the algorithms for every case for the FOP of CFOP. I remember reading somewhere in a post that OLL and PLL wasn't originally Fridrich's idea either.


[sarcacm]And Einstein only came up with that one crappy little equation, he was just a hack and should be discounted for making any contribution to modern science.[/sarcasm]


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Dec 28, 2008)

Just wait until I sub-8 average with edges first.

I was being sarcastic by the way


----------



## qqwref (Dec 28, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> She should only be credited for creating the algorithms for every case for the FOP of CFOP. I remember reading somewhere in a post that OLL and PLL wasn't originally Fridrich's idea either.



I hope you are being sarcastic.


To all of you who actually believe Fridrich does not deserve credit: the real reason the method is referred to as the Fridrich method is not because she is the one and only inventor of the method, but because her website was the most informative and useful speedcubing website (by far) when the cubing fad started up again in 2002 or so. When people started up speedcubing again, they had to learn a method, right? And Fridrich's website promised an average of 17 seconds, and not only that, it also had the algorithms for every step of the method, as well as discussions about the limits of speedcubing and so on. If you think back to that time, when most websites had simple methods and said something like "I used to average 25 seconds with this method back in 1981", when tutorial videos hadn't even been invented yet and there were pretty much no advanced methods (ZB, VH, Roux, Heise), no huge lists of algorithms, no CubeExplorer, etc.... I'm sure you can see how ridiculously useful that website was. Don't think of Fridrich as the inventor (because she probably wasn't), think of her as the coach for the first generation of 21st century speedcubers.


----------



## brunson (Dec 28, 2008)

Apparently the method was known as Fridrich even in 1981. From her narrative:


> A guy was sitting next to me playing with the cube. I asked him about his system. He said: "I am using the Fridrich method." I asked with a surprise in my voice: "You actually memorized ALL algorithms?" His answer was: "No, that's too much. I know only some of them." I replied with: "Well, you need to memorize all of them otherwise you are not really utilizing its strength." He looked at me frawning and said with his mouth half open: "Yeah, so what's your system?" I answered with a big smile: "I use the Fridrich method, too, because I am Fridrich." He did not blink an eye, did not say anything and handed me his messed-up cube. I solved the cube in about 20 seconds to prove my words and we both laughed at the coincidence.


Even more impressive than figuring out her algorithms without a computer, she derived many of them without even a cube:


> I got my hands on a primitive solving system from a Russian magazine  Kvant  long before I actually owned the cube. I would analyze simple moves and their action on a piece of paper, trying to figure out algorithms based on the  commutator principle.


----------



## IamWEB (Dec 29, 2008)

^^^That would explain why the algorithms aren't so good- they weren't made fingertrick friendly, they were made from logical thinking and understanding.

Kudos to Fridrich. =]

Also, the above 2 posts have just made me appreciate her site much more. I liked the site, but I never really explored it... until now.


----------



## Hellena (Dec 29, 2008)

Could somebody tell me how long does it take to build the f2l with the petrus method?


----------



## shelley (Dec 29, 2008)

Hellena said:


> Could somebody tell me how long does it take to build the f2l with the petrus method?



Could you learn some forum etiquette?


----------

