# Petrus



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

Petrus is not a bad method. Why do many people call it bad? This hurts Petrus users. When @Username: Username: said that CFOP is bad and other methods are good then many CFOP Users reacted "angry" to his post. Have Petrus Users no right to prevent their method?


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ArbishAli said:


> Petrus is not a bad method. Why do many people call it bad? This hurts Petrus users. When @Username: Username: said that CFOP is bad and other methods are good then many CFOP Users reacted "angry" to his post. Have Petrus Users no right to prevent their method?


haha i knew it lolololololol

You should make a vote stand for people to think is Petrus a potentially good method, Yes or No?

Edit again: also put like no preference" for people who are not really into sides. Just saying.


----------



## Mo_A2244 (Sep 11, 2020)

I wouldn't say people _hate _the method. Then again I have very little awareness of the argument itself. However, I think it's more of CFOP, Roux, Waterman etc users haven't used Petrus so think it is bad. This could be the case but then again this is my opinion of the argument.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

Mo_A2244 said:


> I wouldn't say people hate the method. Then again I have very little awareness of the argument itself. However, I think it's more of CFOP, Roux, Waterman etc users haven't used Petrus so think it is bad. This could be the case but then again this is my opinion of the argument.


ikr they just think their method is better and Petrus is bad, its pretty nice.

This thread will just be about an argument of Petrus, and people fighting over if its bad, or good. Hope the Petrus stands against the haters!


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

Mo_A2244 said:


> I wouldn't say people _hate _the method. Then again I have very little awareness of the argument itself. However, I think it's more of CFOP, Roux, Waterman etc users haven't used Petrus so think it is bad. This could be the case but then again this is my opinion of the argument.


But the meme:
_Or you could just use Petrus_
It's not good.
They have literally made Petrus a joke and anyone doesn't take it as a method.


----------



## Mo_A2244 (Sep 11, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> ikr they just think their method is better and Petrus is bad, its pretty nice.


I haven't had the time to learn it so I wouldn't know whether or not it is good or bad but overall I think the majority of cubers use CFOP then maybe Petrus and Roux.


ArbishAli said:


> But the meme:
> _Or you could just use Petrus_
> It's not good.


I would think people aren't being _mean_. It's just there opinion. Whether or not you would listen and make a fuss about their opinion is another matter but I think Petrus seems to me like it could be a good method in terms of getting good times. I remember @PetrusQuber getting 12's and 11's on his channel which is better then me using CFOP by a long shot.

However, opinions are opinions and Petrus may or may not be a good method.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

Mo_A2244 said:


> I haven't had the time to learn it so I wouldn't know whether or not it is good or bad but overall I think the majority of cubers use CFOP then maybe Petrus and Roux.
> 
> I would think people aren't being _mean_. It's just there opinion. Whether or not you would listen and make a fuss about their opinion is another matter but I think Petrus seems to me like it could be a good method in terms of getting good times. I remember @PetrusQuber getting 12's and 11's on his channel which is better then me using CFOP by a long shot.
> 
> However, opinions are opinions and Petrus may or may not be a good method.



yOU nEEd PrOOf tO prOOveE tHe TiNg, YUo KnWO.

I mean it also can depend on what cubers think of "good." People might think that 12's and 11's are not really that good or maybe they might think that its really good. So i guess its kinda opinions. But opinions dont work unless you have support and proof to hold it up.


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

When you said that majority of cubes use CFOP and Roux, CriticalCubing high pitched "But many speeders use CFOP" came in my mind. If majority of speedcubers use CFOP it doesn't mean that other methods are bad.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ArbishAli said:


> When you said that majority of cubes use CFOP and Roux, CriticalCubing high pitched "But many speeders use CFOP" came in my mind. If majority of speedcubers use CFOP it doesn't mean that other methods are bad.


ikr its a very common misconception. Its also sad that CFOP has the most information and vids about it, Roux and Petrus, not so much. Im even suprised beinners method has more than them too.


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> ikr its a very common misconception. Its also sad that CFOP has the most information and vids about it, Roux and Petrus, not so much. Im even suprised beinners method has more than them too.


Yes CFOP and Roux are more researched than other methods. So people think that they are the only good methods.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

Just think about it this way,
its compared to the other big four when
it has barely any users,
and it still has gotten farther than most other uncommon methods.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ArbishAli said:


> Yes CFOP and Roux are more researched than other methods. So people think that they are the only good methods.


i would love to be in a world where people had a method in videos on how to use dA *brain and how to do da "think"*


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

and also improvement is easy if you know what your´e doing which is a plus,
once you get a grasp of blockbuilding the slow build of more concepts comes with ease,
on top of that you could probably be sub 9 without zbll


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Just think about it this way,
> its compared to the other big four when
> it has barely any users,
> and it still has gotten farther than most other uncommon methods.


And don't insult it everywhere that it is very bad. Don't use it and all that.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

another thing is petrus was dead for like 20 years,
and just got brought back from its grave by
petrus quber, tao yu
and eventually me and some others


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

If it would not be dead then there would be many Petrus users today.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

Owen Morrison stop doing the look up faces. If you have something to say then post it.

https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/speedcubereviews-petrus-tutorial.77692/ here i think you guys will like this...


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 11, 2020)

I personally think Petrus is a good method. I am reacting with eyes up to the posts I think are pointless.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I personally think Petrus is a good method. I am reacting with eyes up to the posts I think are pointless.


if you think those posts are pointless then you are crazy lmao. Those posts are proving something and are good points.

Normal people dont just put eyes up faces to almost every post imo lol


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> if you think those posts are pointless then you are crazy lmao. Those posts are proving something and are good points.
> 
> Normal people dont just put eyes up faces to almost every post imo lol


dont worry,
he just does that to every thing i ever post,
so i ignore him lol


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I personally think Petrus is a good method. I am reacting with eyes up to the posts I think are pointless.


Why are these posts pointless?


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> dont worry,
> he just does that to every thing i ever post,
> so i ignore him lol


oh ok good *point.*

Wait does he have a thing against you maybe thats why hes doing that hmmm...


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> dont worry,
> he just does that to every thing i ever post,
> so i ignore him lol


Yes I was going to say that.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 11, 2020)

ArbishAli said:


> Why are these posts pointless?





Nir1213 said:


> yOU nEEd PrOOf tO prOOveE tHe TiNg, YUo KnWO.


Uhm what.


ObscureCuber said:


> Just think about it this way,
> its compared to the other big four when
> it has barely any users,
> and it still has gotten farther than most other uncommon methods.



This makes no sense.



ObscureCuber said:


> another thing is petrus was dead for like 20 years,
> and just got brought back from its grave by
> petrus quber, tao yu
> and eventually me and some others


This makes no sense.


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 11, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Uhm what.
> 
> 
> This makes no sense.
> ...


This makes no sense.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

how do they not make sense??
um they do?


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 11, 2020)

@Owen Morrison is reacting with eyes up to your posts because you guys are being very immature and making pointless posts that took no thought. Please be professional and add something of value to the current discussion. This is a forum, not a chat room, and spam posts like the ones in this thread are against the rules. Also....


Nir1213 said:


> you need an update on the first one, for sure.
> 
> Second one you prob dont understand because you cant read.
> 
> Third one same as second.


This is really rude, @Owen Morrison knows perfectly well how to read. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> @Owen Morrison is reacting with eyes up to your posts because you guys are being very immature and making pointless posts that took no thought. Please be professional and add something of value to the current discussion. This is a forum, not a chat room, and spam posts like the ones in this thread are against the rules. Also....
> 
> This is really rude, @Owen Morrison knows perfectly well how to read. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.



just kidding lmao but does he have to do this. These posts have a VALUE. We are making posts that have a POINT. And im not spamming.

hmm maybe it was too harsh... in that case im sorry about that, but can you at least stop spamming eyes up on almost every post.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

I dont know about me bieng immature lol,
i was making post with actual points..


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I dont know about me bieng immature lol,
> i was making post with actual points..


yes chill pls guys dont just get mad cause of a joke...


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 11, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> yes chill pls guys dont just get mad cause of a joke...


It doesn't matter if you were joking, it isn't funny and is not okay. Even if you are joking, someone could be seriously offended. If you are going to continue acting immature, then please just leave.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

so who does Petrus? 
Wait didnt @ObscureCuber main that method oh yea in her profile she said that.
@PetrusQuber r does it and hes good. Like faaastt.
Idk any others. So anyone who does it?


----------



## ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken (Sep 11, 2020)

I myself use Petrus, and started learning almost immediately after I kinda mastered the beginner's method. I think that, besides the things others have already mentioned:
- compared to the beginner's method it seems weird and hard (especially for the blockbuilding and EO)
- most tutorials for switching from beginner to "advanced" don't say anything about other methods and teach CFOP right away
- CFOP is the easiest method to transition to, so why learn something completely different when the best cubers use this method?
- Lars' site isn't the most attractive, even though it has its aesthetic. It looks like something of the first days of the internet. The explanation is pretty good, but who reads these days? Everyone watches tutorials, but not those low quality looking videos, right?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

I use petrus
and average 11-10
depending on how focused/warmed up i am


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken said:


> I myself use Petrus, and started learning almost immediately after I kinda mastered the beginner's method. I think that, besides the things others have already mentioned:
> - compared to the beginner's method it seems weird and hard (especially for the blockbuilding and EO)
> - most tutorials for switching from beginner to "advanced" don't say anything about other methods and teach CFOP right away
> - CFOP is the easiest method to transition to, so why learn something completely different when the best cubers use this method?
> - Lars' site isn't the most attractive, even though it has its aesthetic. It looks like something of the first days of the internet. The explanation is pretty good, but who reads these days? Everyone watches tutorials, but not those low quality looking videos, right?


cool.


ObscureCuber said:


> I use petrus
> and average 11-10
> depending on how focused/warmed up i am


your just like PetrusQuber! Funny he started Petrus because it was a unique method.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> your just like PetrusQuber! Funny he started Petrus because it was a unique method.


I started petrus because i was surfing through methods,
not knowing which method i liked the most.
eventually i found petrusQuber´s petrus sub 8 post
and tried the method myself.
i just found it the most fun and progressed from sub 25~ to sub 15~ in like two days lol.
(i progressed really quickly because i was already sub 15 with cfop and zz and almost sub 15 with roux)
so i already new how to blockbuild somewhat,
and also had a grasp of eo


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I started petrus because i was surfing through methods,
> not knowing which method i liked the most.
> eventually i found petrusQuber´s petrus sub 8 post
> and tried the method myself.
> ...


ok lmao i thought this thread was going to be an argument against if Petrus is better or not, but it just became something else, 
besides, thats pretty cool. You got your inspiration from @PetrusQuber!


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 12, 2020)

I seriously doubt that Petrus was dead for 20 years.


ObscureCuber said:


> Just think about it this way,
> its compared to the other big four when
> it has barely any users,
> and it still has gotten farther than most other uncommon methods.


It's called constructive criticism, mate.


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 12, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I seriously doubt that Petrus was dead for 20 years.
> 
> It's called constructive criticism, mate.


Yes you are right.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 12, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> ikr they just think their method is better and Petrus is bad, its pretty nice.
> 
> This thread will just be about an argument of Petrus, and people fighting over if its bad, or good. Hope the Petrus stands against the haters!


What if they are valid arguments? I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad.


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 12, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> What if they are valid arguments? I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad.


Ok all the arguments are valid . Let's end it.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 12, 2020)

The two people who voted no both had less than 40 messages lol, and aren’t active


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 12, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> What if they are valid arguments? I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad.


They can be valid arguments, no problem. You just gotta counteract them with one of Petrus' strengths. There is not a single method that is perfect, except the memorize-all-quintillion-cases-and-algs method.
But that method is impossible anyway. Every method has its ups and downs. For example, Someone points out that petrus has a weakness, which it probably has, and says that CFOP is better. But that doesnt mean instantly its better. CFOP has a weakness, for example like it has long algs in oll and pll and has alot of cases. You get my point.


----------



## Hassan Khanani (Sep 12, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> The two people who voted no both had less than 40 messages lol, and aren’t active


I do read the forums quite often, I just don't really post much. I do think petrus can get decent times (sub 8 is definitely possible), but I think it is not as good as other methods because of the EO step being in the middle of the solve. To me it does not seem worthwhile to have to recognize and solve EO and only make the last two pairs + LL slightly better, although I may be wrong. Last two pairs without EO can be done very quickly and with no pauses.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 12, 2020)

Coneman said:


> I do read the forums quite often, I just don't really post much. I do think petrus can get decent times (sub 8 is definitely possible), but I think it is not as good as other methods because of the EO step being in the middle of the solve. To me it does not seem worthwhile to have to recognize and solve EO and only make the last two pairs + LL slightly better, although I may be wrong. Last two pairs without EO can be done very quickly and with no pauses.


EO in the middle is not that bad, you can execute and recognize EO really fast, also, look at LEOR.


----------



## mukerflap (Sep 12, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> @Owen Morrison is reacting with eyes up to your posts because you guys are being very immature and making pointless posts that took no thought. Please be professional and add something of value to the current discussion. This is a forum, not a chat room, and spam posts like the ones in this thread are against the rules. Also....
> 
> This is really rude, @Owen Morrison knows perfectly well how to read. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.


you always come to ruin the fun



Username: Username: said:


> EO in the middle is not that bad, you can execute and recognize EO really fast, also, look at LEOR.


leor only works if you plan FBEO which is hard


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 12, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> you always come to ruin the fun


no he doesnt lmao i got angry for no reason and thats where i messed up


----------



## NeoBridgeburn (Sep 21, 2020)

I feel like all method disscussion threads I've read (I've read probably 3, I'm not really active) quickly become ones where 80% of people are diametrically opposed to anything @Owen Morrison. I mean. I'm not saying this thread is too or anything...


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 21, 2020)

nairismic said:


> I feel like all method disscussion threads I've read (I've read probably 3, I'm not really active) quickly become ones where 80% of people are diametrically opposed to anything @Owen Morrison. I mean. I'm not saying this thread is too or anything...


its like annoying when owen always react eyes up but i got over it anyway
to him 80% of all are "dumb"


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 21, 2020)

Petrus isn't _bad_. It's one of the best methods. It's just not as good as the big 3.


----------



## ArbishAli (Sep 21, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Petrus isn't _bad_. It's one of the best methods. It's just not as good as the big 3.


ZZ isn't bad. It is amazing.


----------



## moh_33 (Sep 22, 2020)

well to me any method isn't bad, it usually comes to personal preference after all. 
for some examples i learned and can execute all the big 4 methods and all of the methods has their own ups and downs.


*CFOP being the most popular, has some cons like its reliance on INSPECTION time and the need to learn algs for the LL step.*
_*
Roux being picked up by a lot of cubers also have cons, such as intuitive blockbuilding may be confusing to beginners and the use of M slice that a lot of cubers tend to not use.*_

*ZZ being one of the big 3 does have some cons such as Full EO may be hard for cubers to pick up and F or B moves are more restricted.

Petrus being one of the big 4 has cons as well, such as intuitive blockbuilding like Roux, and some EO in the middle that might be a little confusing for beginners.*


As i said, it all comes down to personal preference so some May argue with the things i said about the Big 4.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

I did propose a petrus-like 4x4 method in the thread earlier. Hope it's halfway decent.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 22, 2020)

moh_33 said:


> well to me any method isn't bad, it usually comes to personal preference after all.
> for some examples i learned and can execute all the big 4 methods and all of the methods has their own ups and downs.
> 
> 
> ...


Well methods can be bad
But reasonable methods, so far have not been totally proven to be so


----------



## tx789 (Sep 22, 2020)

moh_33 said:


> well to me any method isn't bad, it usually comes to personal preference after all.
> for some examples i learned and can execute all the big 4 methods and all of the methods has their own ups and downs.
> 
> 
> ...



How is being reliant on inspection bad and unique to cfop?
Why is more algs bad? Just because it takes effort to learn? Algs get easier to learn as you learn more. Algorithmic steps are faster anyway and intuative steps should feel algorithmic eventually anyway. 

Block building is a lot harder to understand at first true. M slices aren't that bad and is potentially the worse slice after S and E. 

EO is hard to understand at first and how is F and B move restrictions a con isn't that what people love about ZZ. Is the RUL turning. 

CFOP and Roux are good.


Now for ZZ does solving eo save more time later in the solve than is added at the start. With 2020 hardware it isn't better. 

Petrus is a bad method for speedsolving. It was good one old bad hardware where saving moves was the best thing you could do. The 223 block isn't that good for speedsolving.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

tx789 said:


> How is being reliant on inspection bad and unique to cfop?
> Why is more algs bad? Just because it takes effort to learn? Algs get easier to learn as you learn more. Algorithmic steps are faster anyway and intuative steps should feel algorithmic eventually anyway.
> 
> Block building is a lot harder to understand at first true. M slices aren't that bad and is potentially the worse slice after S and E.
> ...



Having lots of algs means having more to optimise for speedsolving.


----------



## moh_33 (Sep 22, 2020)

tx789 said:


> How is being reliant on inspection bad and unique to cfop?
> Why is more algs bad? Just because it takes effort to learn? Algs get easier to learn as you learn more. Algorithmic steps are faster anyway and intuative steps should feel algorithmic eventually anyway.
> 
> Block building is a lot harder to understand at first true. M slices aren't that bad and is potentially the worse slice after S and E.
> ...





TheSlykrCubr said:


> Having lots of algs means having more to optimise for speedsolving.



Well i did tell you that it's only my personal opinion, but i guess you are right

although i should have pointed some things that i do when i cube, i usually do Sledgehammers and hedgslammers instead of normal F2L inserts so i have a habit on using the F and B moves and i guess i should do RUL moves more  (im kinda weird am i).

and for the algorithm count situation, i do more intuitive solves so i like Roux and Petrus over ZZ and CFOP but eh everybody have their opinions and i have NO rights to change your opinions .


i have no intention to make a commotion on topic of the big 4 methods, and i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 22, 2020)

moh_33 said:


> *CFOP being the most popular, has some cons like its reliance on INSPECTION time and the need to learn algs for the LL step.*


How does CFOP have more reliance on inspection than ZZ? And imo CFOP has less inspection reliance than Roux or Petrus.

But anyway let's not start another stupid method argument here


----------



## moh_33 (Sep 23, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> How does CFOP have more reliance on inspection than ZZ? And imo CFOP has less inspection reliance than Roux or Petrus.
> 
> But anyway let's not start another stupid method argument here


Well i guess ZZ have more reliance than CFOP XD



moh_33 said:


> i have no intention to make a commotion on topic of the big 4 methods, and i'm sorry if i hurt your feelings.


Well as i said i don't want a method argument so lets call it a Truce?


----------



## tx789 (Sep 23, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Having lots of algs means having more to optimise for speedsolving.


Algs are easier to optimise. If you want to be fast Roux and CFOP have a lot to optimise. Turning is a big one that applies to all events. 




Also is big four even auccurate anymore. To be honest it is big two these says. Petrus is used by almost no one and ZZ popularity has wanned since Phil Yu's peak in 2011-2013.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 23, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Algs are easier to optimise. If you want to be fast Roux and CFOP have a lot to optimise. Turning is a big one that applies to all events.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


really in reality if somone learned all of zz and its subsets they would have record breaking times but no one has really
it has really big potential
but the number algs is way too high


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 23, 2020)

IMO almost all methods have a barrier where you have to learn an excessive amount of algs. For CFOP, Petrus and ZZ it's ZBLL. For Roux it's Pinkie Pie


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 23, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> really in reality if somone learned all of zz and its subsets they would have record breaking times but no one has really
> it has really big potential
> but the number algs is way too high


 Many people have learned all the algs but still no one has gotten world class.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 23, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> For Roux it's Pinkie Pie


Ummm...what is this?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Ummm...what is this?


pinkie pie is pretty unnecesarry 
if you want to be top level.
so i dont really think it compares to ZB(cfop) ZBLL(ZZ/Petrus) or Waterman(modern)/LMCF(modern+eg)


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 24, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Many people have learned all the algs but still no one has gotten world class.


oof i meant ZB it potentially is slightly better than CFOP but its not worth learning 799 algs (including subsets) 
its so much thats its basically a joke lel
the method itself without subsets needs 300 algs like waat


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> oof i meant ZB it potentially is slightly better than CFOP but its not worth learning 799 algs (including subsets)
> its so much thats its basically a joke lel
> the method itself without subsets needs 300 algs like waat


look at advanced solvers,
at the top level a lot of them already know most of zbll and do edge orientation through the solve.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 24, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> IMO almost all methods have a barrier where you have to learn an excessive amount of algs. For CFOP, Petrus and ZZ it's ZBLL. For Roux it's Pinkie Pie


Dude, why are you even bringing Pinkie Pie which has a lot of algs and not that better than Roux's most advanced variant for L10P (CMLL, EOLR-b then 4c) heck EOLR-b is almost intuitive.


Owen Morrison said:


> Many people have learned all the algs but still no one has gotten world class.


What is your definition of world class first of all, out of all the people in the ZZ community, RadicalMacaroni on the forums is the closest to it and he has a lot of 4s (and a sub 7 average on cam, check out his channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCybeq2j5Wx3UbL8PJn4VO_A) most surprising thing of all is he doesn't even know full ZBLL.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 24, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> really in reality if somone learned all of zz and its subsets they would have record breaking times but no one has really
> it has really big potential
> but the number algs is way too high


Why is that so much better than CFOP?


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 24, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Why is that so much better than CFOP?


i never said it was better, just saying that you can get really fast with it because you dont have to do rotations and you can solve the cube with L, R, and U moves, which is really easy.


----------



## Skewb_Cube (Sep 24, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i never said it was better, just saying that you can get really fast with it because you dont have to do rotations and you can solve the cube with L, R, and U moves, which is really easy.



But, I think ZZ requieres lots of regripes, I think...


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Sep 24, 2020)

pinkie pie is nt worth it vanilla roux with eolr is the best roux variant


----------



## Brayden_Speedcuber (Sep 24, 2020)

The reason I'd say it's bad is because you have to look at most of the pieces when solving, but with CFOP or Roux once you solve pieces you don't need to touch them anymore. Petrus is good for Feet and FMC though.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 24, 2020)

Brayden_Speedcuber said:


> The reason I'd say it's bad is because you have to look at most of the pieces when solving, but with CFOP or Roux once you solve pieces you don't need to touch them anymore. Petrus is good for Feet and FMC though.



feet are obsolete


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 24, 2020)

Skewb_Cube said:


> But, I think ZZ requieres lots of regripes, I think...


Nope, that's in EOLine, in EOCross, regrips are practically non-existant but R-L switching might be a problem for some turning styles.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 24, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Nope, that's in EOLine, in EOCross, regrips are practically non-existant but R-L switching might be a problem for some turning styles.



lol why doesn't anyone talk about eo-cross instead of eo-line when saying zz is bad cause damn, eocross is like better cfop


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 24, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> What is your definition of world class first of all, out of all the people in the ZZ community, RadicalMacaroni on the forums is the closest to it and he has a lot of 4s (and a sub 7 average on cam, check out his channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCybeq2j5Wx3UbL8PJn4VO_A) most surprising thing of all is he doesn't even know full ZBLL.


In my opinion sub 7 global is world-class for 3x3.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Sep 24, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Nope, that's in EOLine, in EOCross, regrips are practically non-existant but R-L switching might be a problem for some turning styles.


If they were non-existent then ZZ would have such a big margin over CFOP that surely at least someone would have gotten CLOSE to the times of the top CFOPers.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i never said it was better, just saying that you can get really fast with it because you dont have to do rotations and you can solve the cube with L, R, and U moves, which is really easy.


The real issue in alot of people's opinions is that L R turning is awkward for tps+lookahead
but this is at least somewhat negated by EOcross and some people looking ahead to first pair.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 24, 2020)

the threads called petrus so let's stop the zz talk


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

well anyway since this is a PETRUS thread ill point out why i think its good,
Petrus+ZBLL could average ~45 moves at top level(most efficient of big 4 by ~3 stm)
Petrus Ergo isn't as bad as people think
2x2x2 has simular ergo to Cross(Either R U F D B or L U F D B)
2x2x3 is usually R U or R U F/L U or L U F
Eo is usually R U F or M U(both of which are ergonomic)
and EOf2l is R U
Eo is Algorithmic(basically super quick recog/execution)
ZBLL every solve is obviously nice
Very Lucky Blocks/EO/F2l are common aswell


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 24, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> well anyway since this is a PETRUS thread ill point out why i think its good,
> Petrus+ZBLL could average ~45 moves at top level(most efficient of big 4 by ~3 stm)
> Petrus Ergo isn't as bad as people think
> 2x2x2 has simular ergo to Cross(Either R U F D B or L U F D B)
> ...



also as a petrus thread, i'd like to explain why i'm the only one who voted for maybe.



Most blind spots out of the big 4, if counting zz as eocross.
Eo, despite being short, in the middle of the solve ruins your tps, thought it could be looked into.
still pretty undeveloped, even though it's the oldest of the big 4.

there's more, but im thick


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> also as a petrus thread, i'd like to explain why i'm the only one who voted for maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(im not saying roux is bad) Roux has DB blindspot(which is worse) because of 2x2x3 bieng solved, petrus doesnt really have bad blind spots


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

here's my version of cons
-EO in mid solve
-the method is fairly developed actually, but IS SUPER hard compared to the other big 4 to get fast at(mainly how crazy the blockbuilding can be)
-Ergo is worst of big 4(but not by much)IMO ergo is Cfop,Roux,ZZ(cross),Petrus(this could be wrong)
-wierd lookahead(EO to F2l transition)


----------



## RiceMan_ (Sep 24, 2020)

everyone has thier own opinion


----------



## tx789 (Sep 25, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i never said it was better, just saying that you can get really fast with it because you dont have to do rotations and you can solve the cube with L, R, and U moves, which is really easy.



Rotations aren't that bad and you should use more than about 3 in cfop. RUL isn't that good of a move set.


TheSlykrCubr said:


> lol why doesn't anyone talk about eo-cross instead of eo-line when saying zz is bad cause damn, eocross is like better cfop


Eocross is worse cfop. You have to inspect less for eocross than cross. Even if you can plan eocross+1 then you probably can inspect cross+2. And having more f2l pairs solved after cross is much better since there are less places to look for f2l pieces and non EO F2L is fine. Cubes aren't bad any more. RUL turning isn't that good.





Petrus isn't that good. Consider inspection how much do you plan? If just 222 then you must pause for 223 then pause for EO. You have a lot of blind spots. If you inspect 223 which you would do if you were actually serious about be fast with Petrus then you have EO immediately. The egronomics of block building a 223 isn't good. While the solution may have a low move count your tps will be low. 223 will take 11+ moves (solutions optimised for speed won't be optimal). EO will disturb flow. Compared to CFOP the first two fWl2l pairs and cross flow a more nicely. After this point cfop has a bit of an advantage because it has a cross solved. 

Honestly Petrus was viable 15 years ago when cubes turned badly and your tps was limited heavily meaning low move counts were the goal. Things have changed more turns are possible at a quick speed. Yes this makes block building a bit better but Petrus has got more rotations than CFOP anyway.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 25, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Rotations aren't that bad and you should use more than about 3 in cfop. RUL isn't that good of a move set.
> 
> Eocross is worse cfop. You have to inspect less for eocross than cross. Even if you can plan eocross+1 then you probably can inspect cross+2. And having more f2l pairs solved after cross is much better since there are less places to look for f2l pieces and non EO F2L is fine. Cubes aren't bad any more. RUL turning isn't that good.
> 
> ...


where do people get this idea of petrus having"blind spots"
if you inpect 223(which many people already do)
than theres only 2 sides left(top front/top right) so that argument doesn't make sense.
also look at roux, roux M U has much less TPS potential than RUF but because of efficiency that doesnt really matter.
look at what i talked about with ergo petrus really doesnt have that bad ergo very simular to that of cfop, if not better after 223
also tps is based off efficiency+tps
45/6 is 7.5 seconds, this is EXTREMELY doable and Tps can be pushed much further but even at 6 tps solves(with ZBLL) can be sub 8 easily,
55/7.2 is 7.6 seconds, meaning that the slightly worse ergo/lookahead is cancelled out also EO doesn't"disturb flow" as much as you think it does.
the average EO movecount is 6, and can(and should) be algorithmic,
also you can create/preserve pairs and put in cross edge during EO.
the average time of EO for me is ~0.67(without recognition)
and if you plan 223 you could easily look to EO while solving 223.

223 ergo isnt as bad as you think aswell
222 is R U F D B/L U F D B(same as cross)
and 223 is usually R U F/L U F/R U/L U (basically same as jayden style cfop or you could just rotate)
((also sounds like these are boomer jayden arguments))


----------



## mukerflap (Sep 25, 2020)

Skewb_Cube said:


> But, I think ZZ requieres lots of regripes, I think...






where


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 25, 2020)

he was unsure+ probably thinking of EOLINE(superoutdatedbtw)


mukerflap said:


> where


this shows ZZ's potential,
this guy wasn't even using coll im pretty sure


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 25, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Nope, that's in EOLine, in EOCross, regrips are practically non-existant but R-L switching might be a problem for some turning styles.


if someone could master it, which would take some time, it would be worth it tho
like seriously but its gonna take some time


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> he was unsure+ probably thinking of EOLINE(superoutdatedbtw)
> 
> this shows ZZ's potential,
> this guy wasn't even using coll im pretty sure


I saw in his comment section in a recent video that he averaged 7.5 globally with ZZ(without ZBLL i'm pretty sure)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I saw in his comment section in a recent video that he averaged 7.5 globally with ZZ(without ZBLL i'm pretty sure)


I think you're thinking of @RadicalMacaroni


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 25, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I think you're thinking of @RadicalMacaroni


no?
it was litterally a reply to someone from him in the comment section bruuuh


----------



## tx789 (Sep 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> where do people get this idea of petrus having"blind spots"
> if you inpect 223(which many people already do)
> than theres only 2 sides left(top front/top right) so that argument doesn't make sense.
> also look at roux, roux M U has much less TPS potential than RUF but because of efficiency that doesnt really matter.
> ...


Assuming you inspect 223 petrus still has the DR edge and that is a worse blind spot compared to CFOP at cross+2. Also MU is fast with the right finger tricks. In terms of 223 tps it would be good to look at roux tps during f2b to get an idea of what petrus could get.

The ergonomics of 223 is worse than cross+2. While 222 might be as good as cross you spend more time with a low amount of ergonomics. God's number for cross is 8 with 5-6 being the average for can. For Petrus 223 God's number is 11. Not sure about 223 stats for average can no one has calulated it but from doing FMC I know the average is a lot higher than cross. You spend a lot more time doing block building.

EO does break the flow a bit. Assuming you inspect 223 which if your good should feel algorithmic. After solving a 223 you don't solve pieces immediately you do EO. Meaning looking ahead during 223 is harder. Maybe you inspect EO and 223 but at that point you are inspecting a lot and other better methods (cfop and roux) gain an advantage since your a lot deeper into the solve and blind spots are filled.


Also why end in ad hominem you are showing your not confident enough in your agrument you attack the people arguing you.

Edit: name people who is petrus who also inspect 223 (not doing this makes Petrus a lot worse) the number of people who is it are very small and they mainly but not entirely want to be unique. If you find the method more fun then practice it but that doesn't make it better.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Sep 25, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I think you're thinking of @RadicalMacaroni


Hyeon also avgs around 7.5 iirc


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 25, 2020)

tx789 said:


> Assuming you inspect 223 petrus still has the DR edge and that is a worse blind spot compared to CFOP at cross+2. Also MU is fast with the right finger tricks. In terms of 223 tps it would be good to look at roux tps during f2b to get an idea of what petrus could get.
> 
> The ergonomics of 223 is worse than cross+2. While 222 might be as good as cross you spend more time with a low amount of ergonomics. God's number for cross is 8 with 5-6 being the average for can. For Petrus 223 God's number is 11. Not sure about 223 stats for average can no one has calulated it but from doing FMC I know the average is a lot higher than cross. You spend a lot more time doing block building.
> 
> ...


gods number for cross is 8? i think thats way to high
anyway why are you comparing cross to 2x2x3
you should be comparing it to 2x2x2(i average 7 with 2x2 and 7 with cross)
also while cross+2 has better ergonomics you got to think about efficiency impacting tps again,
if i (someone who at a time was sub 12 with both methods)
did Arrow+2 f2l pairs i would be on average probably 1.5 seconds slower so no you do not spend more time on 223 because of how efficient it is
also that was a joke but you called it an ad hominem
((of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.)
that joke had nothing to do with my actual argument and as you could tell i had plenty of actual points so no i was not being"insecure"


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> gods number for cross is 8? i think thats way to high
> anyway why are you comparing cross to 2x2x3
> you should be comparing it to 2x2x2(i average 7 with 2x2 and 8 with cross)
> also while cross+2 has better ergonomics you got to think about efficiency impacting tps again,
> ...


God's number for cross is actually 8, there are hardly any cases that require 8 moves, but that is correct.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> gods number for cross is 8? i think thats way to high
> anyway why are you comparing cross to 2x2x3
> you should be comparing it to 2x2x2(i average 7 with 2x2 and 7 with cross)
> also while cross+2 has better ergonomics you got to think about efficiency impacting tps again,
> ...


God's number for cross is 8 but for cn solves there are only 40 cases where there are 6 eight move crosses. I am not sure what the numbers are like for 223. I believe God's number is 11 for 223. However speed optimised solutions aren't always move optimal. 222 God's number is 8 too I believe however expanding a 222 into a 223 will that more than 3 moves so building a 223 this way will have a higher average. Building a 223 block more directly would result in even slower tps.

This step would have the lowest tps. 

Also Petrus seems to have a lot more rotations avoiding then in block building would be less efficient.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

tx789 said:


> God's number for cross is 8 but for cn solves there are only 40 cases where there are 6 eight move crosses. I am not sure what the numbers are like for 223. I believe God's number is 11 for 223. However speed optimised solutions aren't always move optimal. 222 God's number is 8 too I believe however expanding a 222 into a 223 will that more than 3 moves so building a 223 this way will have a higher average. Building a 223 block more directly would result in even slower tps.
> 
> This step would have the lowest tps.
> 
> Also Petrus seems to have a lot more rotations avoiding then in block building would be less efficient.


how would avoiding rotations make it less efficient(just do an F/B move it isnt as bad for ergo as you think((look at fruf turning in cfop))?
also no, if you plan 223 than petrus has 1-2 rotations
making it two sometimes to make block have better ergo(this is still less rotations than cfop)
and again look at efficiency,
in roux(i could be wrong here) but the most efficient first block is usually best ergonomics is not the onlything that factors into tps.(again EFFICIENCY impacts TPS)
so it should be applicable to petrus here(which it is and already have explained)

Turns per second is
Efficiency/time
so efficiency is an equal factor to making a solve have good tps.
to have an example do this:
45/7.5 vs
55/7.5
55/7.5 requires greater turning speed(for obvious reasons) so ergo is only half of the factor, which you seemingly can't understand


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 26, 2020)

Not sure why you quoted me there.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> Not sure why you quoted me there.


didn't mean to lol


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

look at the turning in this video(yes i know this is roux)
but what im saying is here is that because the solves are decently efficient, critical cubing can turn much slower
ok so 8.26 ao5 lets say that in this video the average movecount was 50~
(i dont know an exact this is just for example)
so tps would be an average of 6 now if this same average was the same times with efficiency of petrus,(~~45)
the tps would only need to be 5.44,
this cancels(atleast partially) the issue with ergonomics.


----------

