# If Fridrich wasn't invented, what do you think the WR time would be?



## Zhanchi1 (Apr 19, 2012)

i know you might have already seen my 'if fridrich wanst invented, what method would you use?' thread, but this is different


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 19, 2012)

5.12 I guess.

People would have used Roux and Roux is faster


----------



## blakedacuber (Apr 19, 2012)

No offence but personally i think thats a stupid question its next to impossible to predict


----------



## ben1996123 (Apr 19, 2012)

2e seconds


----------



## ThomasJE (Apr 19, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> 5.12 I guess.
> 
> People would have used Roux and Roux is faster



If Roux is faster, why do a lot of us use CFOP?

Probably 5-10 secs. The record time would be slower than 5.66, and 5BLD (to name one) is Roux sub-10.


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 19, 2012)

ThomasJE said:


> If Roux is faster, why do a lot of us use CFOP?
> 
> Probably 5-10 secs. The record time would be slower than 5.66, and 5BLD (to name one) is Roux sub-10.


 

CFOP is so easy to learn.

Also, if CFOP wasn't invented, more people would have used Roux and time with Roux would have been faster.


----------



## stricgoogle (Apr 19, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> CFOP is so easy to learn.


Yeah, almost 80 algorithms and many more that the fastest people know are easy to learn. 
Also, I don't think that matters when it comes to world record times, since people would just learn the fastest method, not the easiest one.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Apr 19, 2012)

I'd assume Roux?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

stricgoogle said:


> Yeah, almost 80 algorithms and many more that the fastest people know are easy to learn.



Comparatively easy for an advanced method due to the large amount of documentation.



stricgoogle said:


> Also, I don't think that matters when it comes to world record times, since people would just learn the fastest method, not the easiest one.


 
"people" do not know what the fastest method is.


----------



## MWilson (Apr 19, 2012)

stricgoogle said:


> Yeah, almost 80 algorithms and many more that the fastest people know are easy to learn.
> Also, I don't think that matters when it comes to world record times, since people would just learn the fastest method, not the easiest one.



But learning 80 algorithms _is_ easy. It's not quick, but it is just a matter of sticking with it and putting the time in. OLL PLL is like paying your CFOP "dues" if you want to finish the solve. The only hard part is not getting bored, discouraged, or overwhelmed, which are personal issues and not difficulty from within the method.

Block building methods are more difficult to start with, because you can't just look at your cube, look at the pictures online, and memorize the sequence of moves for that case.

Also, a lot of people only find out about the advanced methods after they learn the usual LBL beginner's method. At first glance, CFOP is just an extension of the beginner's LBL so it's more attractive in that sense as well. I guess it's popularity isn't hurt by it being the method of almost all the top WRs either.

Going from beginner's LBL to CFOP is like taking the training wheels off a bike. Going to Roux is like putting the bike aside and ignoring it, and starting to learn gymnastics instead.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Apr 19, 2012)

stricgoogle said:


> Yeah, almost 80 algorithms and many more that the fastest people know are easy to learn.


 
Learning algs is easier than becoming good at thinking about moves and solving more intuitively; at least, for beginners.



stricgoogle said:


> since people would just learn the fastest method, not the easiest one.



People also like what they are familiar with, hence they stick to methods similar to what they already know (ie: beginner LBL tends to transition into "proper" CFOP better than other methods. I'm under the impression that most solvers started with some kind of LBL method).

Also, what's the fastest method? In my head, it'd be the one with the least number of steps and/or turns- God's algorithm if you're... God- or maybe something with ZBLL. I'm not sure how many people know full ZBLL, let alone use ZBLL for speedsolving; I was told once that "only about two people know it and they don't bother using it for speed".
So this isn't the most reliable source, but my point is that ZBLL is hardly common, but theoretically the fastest Last-layer approach (unless I have been living in a cave and actually everybody knows it apart from me).

EDIT: Dominate addressed most of what I've said better, guess I got ninja'd?


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 19, 2012)

Over 15 secs definitely, as if we were not clever enough to even come up with such a simple/obvious way to go like CFOP then we might not think of other methods. 



ThomasJE said:


> If Roux is faster, why do a lot of us use CFOP?


 
Good point, because methods have speeds.
-
Nah, it's because CFOP is a smart/obvious step ahead from LBL and is efficient enough to have reasonable speed. Gains popularity => supa fast


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Good point, because methods have speeds.


 
Look! It's Kirjava.


----------



## Dacuba (Apr 19, 2012)

I expected the choices 5-6 7-6 up to 9-10 lol
I refuse to vote


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

ahaha I only just noticed the poll options - that's hilarious

lern2 minh thai


----------



## jla (Apr 19, 2012)

Dominate said:


> Going from beginner's LBL to CFOP is like taking the training wheels off a bike. Going to Roux is like putting the bike aside and ignoring it, and starting to learn gymnastics instead.


 
Made my day


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Apr 19, 2012)

2 people deny the existence of WC 1982.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 19, 2012)

i put "45+" because i thought the units were minutes.


----------



## BigGreen (Apr 19, 2012)

one can only assume that 7.41 would be the world record.


----------



## tx789 (Apr 19, 2012)

What ever was most poplaur. Maybe Corner First, Petrus or Roux.
Who know stuff like ZB and maybe ZZ would exist possibly


----------



## cubernya (Apr 19, 2012)

tx789 said:


> What ever was most poplaur. Maybe Corner First, Petrus or Roux.
> Who know stuff like ZB and maybe ZZ would exist possibly


 
ZB is an extension to CFOP...


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

I love the idea that ZB could exist without CFOP


----------



## Escher (Apr 19, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I love the idea that ZB could exist without CFOP


 
Replace the letters 'ZB' for 'full Petrus LL' and you have it


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

Petrus F2L != Cfop F2L


----------



## Czery (Apr 19, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> lern2 minh thai


 
Corners first!


----------



## cubecraze1 (Apr 19, 2012)

most likely sub 5 or 5-10 people have already got sub 10 times with roux and roux would be more popular if CFOP was not invented.


----------



## aznanimedude (Apr 20, 2012)

without CFOP, 5BLD would rampage even more with his Roux of destruction


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Apr 20, 2012)

I think it's impossible to determine. Would the WCA be so popular if CFOP never existed? Would speedcubing be so popular?

Edit: assuming everything else about the sport was the same, I'd say that it would be impossible for the WR to be over 10 seconds. Why are the times so spread apart? You shouldn't have any times over 22.95 seconds!


----------



## araujoyan40 (Apr 20, 2012)

maybe other more faster and better had been invented


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Apr 21, 2012)

If everything else in cubing was the same, it couldn't be any other options than 5-10 seconds or sub-5 seconds. There are sub-10 Roux solves in competition. I think the choices should be:

over 15 seconds
12-15 seconds
11-12 seconds
10-11 seconds seconds
9-10 seconds
8-9 seconds
7-8 seconds
6-7 seconds
5-6 seconds
under 5 seconds


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 21, 2012)

5.66. It would've been created/published by someone other than Fridrich.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 21, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> most likely sub 5 or 5-10 people have already got sub 10 times with roux and roux would be more popular if CFOP was not invented.


 
So you think CFOP has been holding people back?


----------



## blackzabbathfan (Apr 21, 2012)

It would most likely be 5-10 seconds, probably set by 5BLD, Who will probably break the WR sometime soon anyway.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Apr 21, 2012)

Godmil said:


> So you think CFOP has been holding people back?


 
Well to be honest I do, but I use CFOP, 5bld has really proven that you can improve quickly with roux, he would easily be the fastest person to become sub 10. The only thing stopping me from saying what i just said is that i use CFOP.


----------



## applemobile (Apr 21, 2012)

5bld also proved that he can be sub 20 with 20 methods that he didn't even practice. Certain people will be fast with what ever method they choose. Roux can be a fast method, but only if you are good at it. Anyone can get fast at CFOP, but roux is a much harder method to master. IMO FreeFOP should be much faster than CFOP, and thats the mothod i think would hold the WR. OLL+PLL can be done in 2.5seconds adv, and if one was to master an exhaustive method to complete the first two layers without being confined to a cross followed by 4 corner edge pairs, there would be a lot more room for efficiency. I don't see why someone couldn't have a 6 second adverage with FreeFOP.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Apr 21, 2012)

applemobile said:


> 5bld also proved that he can be sub 20 with 20 methods that he didn't even practice. Certain people will be fast with what ever method they choose. Roux can be a fast method, but only if you are good at it. Anyone can get fast at CFOP, but roux is a much harder method to master.


 
I do agree. did 5bld do sub 20 with 20 methods? so did kirjava. roux is harder to master and at the end of the day it's what method suits you.


----------



## pkvk9122 (Apr 21, 2012)

What about ZZ? ZZ has alot of potential too 

pkvk9122


----------



## Godmil (Apr 21, 2012)

in reply to the last few comments : it was Kirjava who did the sub-20 with 20 methods, and I think Big Green has faster offical times with Roux, and also while 5BLD is really awesome, other people have got that fast in that time frame with CFOP. Also FreeFOP is pretty cool, but the restrictions in CFOP actually have an advantage too. Also ZZ has had plenty of time for someone to demonstrate its potential, but it's still not happened.

I think CFOP and Roux are the only methods that are capable of really fast times (sub-8) at the moment.


----------



## Gabo (Apr 21, 2012)

I think that friedrich is that fast just because it's easy to master and someone practiced it really really hard.... any other method would have been equally good if someone had practiced it until they had mastered it


----------



## MWilson (Apr 21, 2012)

Godmil said:


> in reply to the last few comments : it was Kirjava who did the sub-20 with 20 methods, and I think Big Green has faster offical times with Roux, and also while 5BLD is really awesome, other people have got that fast in that time frame with CFOP. Also FreeFOP is pretty cool, but the restrictions in CFOP actually have an advantage too. Also ZZ has had plenty of time for someone to demonstrate its potential, but it's still not happened.
> 
> I think CFOP and Roux are the only methods that are capable of really fast times (sub-8) at the moment.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34290-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods


----------



## Godmil (Apr 21, 2012)

Dominate said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34290-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods


 
Woah, that's awesome. Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 22, 2012)

Well, I suppose it depends. Consider the 1982 WC, most people there didn't have a clue what Fridrich was, and it hadn't actually come into the public cubing consciousness until around 1997, when she published the method on her website. Despite this, there were 9 people faster than Fridrich. I'm going to assume that none of these people knew about the Fridrich method, so that's 9 people getting times faster than Fridrich without using her method. The world record was set using a corners-first solution, actually.

This time was 22.95 seconds, which means that we can automatically discount half of the entire poll, up to 20-25. This is where it gets trickier.

I'm also going to assume that Cross, F2L, OLL and PLL were all thought up by separate people around the globe. There's definite proof that the Cross and F2L were invented by David Singmaster and René Schoof, respectively. OLL and PLL shouldn't have been too hard to think up individually. These steps were just never combined into a method.

Anyway.

It appears Lars Petrus has shown to have discovered lots of good ideas for speedcubing, such as finger tricks, quite independent of Fridrich. His best average is 20.48, and it doesn't seem to be too much of a jump to be able to get 15-20 with this. So 20-25 is out.

The Roux method has been shown to be incredibly fast, although the question arises whether the method was discovered completely independently or with ideas from the Fridrich method. It looks like it would be hard to come up with completely independently, but I suppose with the Petrus method out there, it wouldn't be too hard.

(EDIT: Turns out he was inspired by Petrus and Waterman. So there weren't ideas from the Fridrich method, I only put that in because it was proposed 6 years after Fridrich was published. So there you go.)

Regardless, it is fast. 5BLD has achieved a 10 second average officially, while BigGreen has achieved 9.65 seconds. I think it's fair to say that we can strike out 10-15 off the list, leaving sub-5 and 5-10.

Sub-5 would be incredibly difficult to achieve, with any method, even only with a single time, not average. So I don't think that will be the world record for at least another year, and even then it will probably be easy or lucky. 5-10, however, while difficult to achieve, is certainly possible. So I voted for that, thus destroying the nice round number of voters that there were.

*prepares for hate mail*


----------



## aronpm (Apr 22, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> *prepares for hate mail*


 
Whoa whoa whoa. Someone actually thinking about their response to one of these threads? Everybody get your pitchforks and torches.


----------



## ottozing (Apr 22, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> *prepares for hate mail*


 
you really shouldnt assume that everyone hates you. your post was logical and made alot of sense.


----------



## cubelover111 (Apr 22, 2012)

To everybody who say that Roux is better than CFOP because 5bld have achieved sub-10 faster than everyone else. Feliks most probably had achieved it a lot quicker if he had only practised 3x3. He is not only the fastest 3x3 cuber but is also among the fastest 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, OH, 4x4 bld, he is also among top 100 in 5x5 bld, pyraminx, megaminx, square-1, FMC, 3x3 bld, rubik's clock and this it self is a great achievement.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 22, 2012)

ottozing said:


> you really shouldnt assume that everyone hates you. your post was logical and made alot of sense.


 
I know I shouldn't, but it's honestly just easier. If you don't get hatemail, you feel really happy, and if you do, then at least you were prepared, so you don't get _really_ disappointed. Whereas going the other way round... egh. You feel normal when you don't get hatemail and really terrible when you do. I choose the safer route.

EDIT: Besides, it was more for the fact that I destroyed the round number of voters, but I suppose that doesn't mean anything really, so meh.



cubelover111 said:


> To everybody who say that Roux is better than CFOP because 5bld have achieved sub-10 faster than everyone else. Feliks most probably had achieved it a lot quicker if he had only practised 3x3. He is not only the fastest 3x3 cuber but is also among the fastest 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, OH, 4x4 bld, he is also among top 100 in 5x5 bld, pyraminx, megaminx, square-1, FMC, 3x3 bld, rubik's clock and this it self is a great achievement.


 
People are saying that Roux is better than CFOP from the perspective of someone who isn't prepared to spend pretty much everyday of their entire cubing life practicing, at least half an hour at a time. So I'm not sure this is completely justified.

Besides, I think that practicing 3x3 a hell of a lot gives you a massive advantage when going into other events, as it lets you see pieces quicker, it can help your recognition time, and so forth. But I don't know if that's actually true. If you want to find out, go ahead and ask him.


----------



## irontwig (Apr 22, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> The Roux method has been shown to be incredibly fast, although the question arises whether the method was discovered completely independently or with ideas from the Fridrich method. It looks like it would be hard to come up with completely independently, but I suppose with the Petrus method out there, it wouldn't be too hard. Regardless, it is fast. 5BLD has achieved a 10 second average officially, while BigGreen has achieved 9.65 seconds. I think it's fair to say that we can strike out 10-15 off the list, leaving sub-5 and 5-10.



Iirc Gilles has said that he was inspired by Petrus and Waterman, neither of which knew about CFOP when they thought up their methods.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 22, 2012)

irontwig said:


> Iirc Gilles has said that he was inspired by Petrus and Waterman, neither of which knew about CFOP when they thought up their methods.


 
Hooray for new information! Editing now, thanks.

So there you go. Roux would probably be one of, if not the, method of choice for speedcubers today if Fridrich didn't exist.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 23, 2012)

ZincK_NOVA said:


> Learning algs is easier than becoming good at thinking about moves and solving more intuitively; at least, for beginners.



Really? I find that beginners tend to have trouble learning algs.



ZincK_NOVA said:


> Also, what's the fastest method? In my head, it'd be the one with the least number of steps and/or turns- God's algorithm if you're... God-



Speed optimal is 'faster' than optimal.



ZincK_NOVA said:


> or maybe something with ZBLL. I'm not sure how many people know full ZBLL, let alone use ZBLL for speedsolving; I was told once that "only about two people know it and they don't bother using it for speed".
> So this isn't the most reliable source, but my point is that ZBLL is hardly common, but theoretically the fastest Last-layer approach (unless I have been living in a cave and actually everybody knows it apart from me).



I think there are better techniques than ZBLL or 1LLL for LL, and I think there are better techniques than doing LL at all.



Tim Major said:


> 5.66. It would've been created/published by someone other than Fridrich.



It wasn't created by Fridrich, and the topic is 'not invented' not 'not invented by Fridrich'.



applemobile said:


> Anyone can get fast at CFOP, but roux is a much harder method to master.



[citation needed]



applemobile said:


> IMO FreeFOP should be much faster than CFOP, and thats the mothod i think would hold the WR.



In theory, yes - but in practise getting good at a multitude of techniques for F2L compared to getting very good at one might not be better overall 



megaminxwin said:


> Well, I suppose it depends. Consider the 1982 WC, most people there didn't have a clue what Fridrich was, and it hadn't actually come into the public cubing consciousness until around 1997, when she published the method on her website. Despite this, there were 9 people faster than Fridrich. I'm going to assume that none of these people knew about the Fridrich method, so that's 9 people getting times faster than Fridrich without using her method.



People were using very similar methods to fridrich though.



cubelover111 said:


> To everybody who say that Roux is better than CFOP because 5bld have achieved sub-10 faster than everyone else. Feliks most probably had achieved it a lot quicker if he had only practised 3x3. He is not only the fastest 3x3 cuber but is also among the fastest 2x2, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, OH, 4x4 bld, he is also among top 100 in 5x5 bld, pyraminx, megaminx, square-1, FMC, 3x3 bld, rubik's clock and this it self is a great achievement.



This literally means nothing as far as what method is 'best'.


----------



## thatkid (Apr 23, 2012)

to get top 100 in 5bld all you need is a success in competition


----------



## TMOY (Apr 23, 2012)

The "26 years" option is missing.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 23, 2012)

thatkid said:


> to get top 100 in 5bld all you need is a success in competition



That still takes a hellava lot of work though, surely.


----------



## Erik (Apr 23, 2012)

This must be one of the worst polls ever on speedsolving... sorry to say. The options show no insight in the expected results, plus the gaps should be exponential rather than linear with the knowledge we have now of different methods.
Even in 1982 already Marc Waterman was like far sub-20 average (17-18) with his own method so.. come on.

Besides this, Fridrich was born, not invented ;-) (jk jk)


Spoiler



but srsly it's a bad name for referring to what is commonly known as CFOP


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Apr 24, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Really? I find that beginners tend to have trouble learning algs.


I find that beginners have more trouble trying to block-build than memorising a few short algs (probably varies from person to person).




Kirjava said:


> Speed optimal is 'faster' than optimal.


True, but I don't recall reading anywhere that a hypothetical "fastest method" had to apply to a method performed by a human. Also, move optimal could also be speed optimal in certain circumstances.




Kirjava said:


> I think there are better techniques than ZBLL or 1LLL for LL, and I think there are better techniques than doing LL at all.


I was just going off the top of my head. I'm not too fond of looking at LL variations; more fond of looking the concept of methods with different last steps. I probably could've talked about how finishing with a layer may not necessarily be optimal (speed, or otherwise).

These are just my thoughts on the subject, I don't have any concrete evidence for anything I have suggested. I just hope you don't use that detail to immediately disprove them.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 24, 2012)

ZincK_NOVA said:


> I find that beginners have more trouble trying to block-build than memorising a few short algs (probably varies from person to person).



They have less trouble using a braindead piece solving technique than learning algs. It doesn't have to be blockbuilding.



ZincK_NOVA said:


> True, but I don't recall reading anywhere that a hypothetical "fastest method" had to apply to a method performed by a human.



Are you honestly saying that that assumption would be an outlandish one to make, given the context of this forum?


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Apr 24, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> They have less trouble using a braindead piece solving technique than learning algs. It doesn't have to be blockbuilding.


Never said it had to be, just that algs were easier than blockbuilding for most people I know. As of yet, I am not aware of any braindead methods that do not involve some form of set move sequence at one point or another (something that could be described as an algorithm, in terms of cubing).



Kirjava said:


> Are you honestly saying that that assumption would be an outlandish one to make, given the context of this forum?


Not really, just saying it's an assumption I personally didn't make this time. In my head, humans are pretty much jack of all trades, master of none; we're not specifically designed for speedsolving a 3x3, so we're probably not the most efficient at it. Maybe I'm just being silly.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 24, 2012)

ZincK_NOVA said:


> Never said it had to be, just that algs were easier than blockbuilding for most people I know. As of yet, I am not aware of any braindead methods that do not involve some form of set move sequence at one point or another (something that could be described as an algorithm, in terms of cubing).



No pre memorised move sequences required




ZincK_NOVA said:


> Not really, just saying it's an assumption I personally didn't make this time. In my head, humans are pretty much jack of all trades, master of none; we're not specifically designed for speedsolving a 3x3, so we're probably not the most efficient at it. Maybe I'm just being silly.


 
You are. That kind of assumption is a given given the context.


----------



## ZincK_NOVA (Apr 24, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> No pre memorised move sequences required


I would guess that most beginners would be too intimidated by this or just memorise the examples; I can only guess though. Furthermore, I wouldn't describe it as braindead as it does involve some kind of observation and creative piece manipulation (assuming this "beginner" hasn't just memorised the examples). This is quite nice though, thank you for sharing it


----------



## qqwref (Apr 24, 2012)

If you ask me, the world record would be 22.95 seconds set by Minh Thai, at the last cubing world championship ever held.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> People were using very similar methods to fridrich though.



The point being? They might have been very similar, but that doesn't mean they were close enough to be called Fridrich/CFOP/FG (Fridrich-Goljan). Besides, even if they were faster and using something close enough to be called CFOP, you have people like Lars Petrus, who got a 24.57 as opposed to Fridrich's 29.11.



qqwref said:


> If you ask me, the world record would be 22.95 seconds set by Minh Thai, at the last cubing world championship ever held.



Smart, but just because Fridrich published the method on her website, kickstarting the craze again, doesn't mean that it could've come back by other means. For example, Petrus published his method around the same time, so who's to say that he couldn't have started it again? (i'm getting the wrong thing here aren't i. meh)

EDIT: Also, it looks like TwistyPuzzles.com managed to get started without Fridrich's help at all, so it could've restarted through there, but it looks like a [citation needed] kind of thing. Still interesting though.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> The point being?


 
You said most people at WC1982 didn't know what Fridrich was.

There were people at that competition using F2L. Jiri Fridrich was not one of them.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You said most people at WC1982 didn't know what Fridrich was.
> 
> There were people at that competition using F2L. Jiri Fridrich was not one of them.


 
F2L, sure, but were they also using OLL and PLL? Probably not. I quote what I said earlier:



> I'm also going to assume that Cross, F2L, OLL and PLL were all thought up by separate people around the globe. There's definite proof that the Cross and F2L were invented by David Singmaster and René Schoof, respectively. OLL and PLL shouldn't have been too hard to think up individually. These steps were just never combined into a method.



Cross and F2L, sure. But CF does not a CFOP make. I'm saying that C, F, O, and P all existed, sure, but CFOP didn't. Unlikely, sure, but we're in the realm of the hypothetical anyway, so why not?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> F2L, sure, but were they also using OLL and PLL?



Hans Dockhorn and Anneke Treep were doing so in 1981. Guus Razoux Schultz was also well aware of F2L and CLL/ELL & OLL/PLL at this time. It is nowhere near a stretch to assume that it was being used.



megaminxwin said:


> Cross and F2L, sure. But CF does not a CFOP make. I'm saying that C, F, O, and P all existed, sure, but CFOP didn't. Unlikely, sure, but we're in the realm of the hypothetical anyway, so why not?


 
What point are you trying to make here? That CFOP in it's current form didn't exist in 1982? I never said it did.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> What point are you trying to make here? That CFOP in it's current form didn't exist in 1982? I never said it did.



Yeah, I should've made that clearer. Basically, in this strange, alternate universe, CFOP doesn't exist, but Cross, F2L, OLL and PLL do. All invented by different people, no one thinking to combine the method because (a) people are stupid or (b) some of the steps were never publicised very well at all.



Kirjava said:


> Hans Dockhorn and Anneke Treep were doing so in 1981.


 
Huh. Really? That's actually pretty surprising. But considering they weren't at the competition, we can't really get any proof of CFOP being the fastest method from them, so it doesn't necessarily mean that CFOP is definitely the fastest method. Slower times at WC1982, sure, but couldn't that get faster without CFOP?

Bleh, I'm bored of this topic. Flame me over PM if you can be bothered continuing this.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> we can't really get any proof of CFOP being the fastest method from them, so it doesn't necessarily mean that CFOP is definitely the fastest method


 
I almost can't believe what I'm reading.


----------



## megaminxwin (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> I almost can't believe what I'm reading.


 
Yeah, reading back, that was pretty stupid. Stupid, stupid, 2 hours ago me. *stops talking about entirely*


----------



## qqwref (Apr 25, 2012)

megaminxwin said:


> Smart, but just because Fridrich published the method on her website, kickstarting the craze again, doesn't mean that it could've come back by other means. For example, Petrus published his method around the same time, so who's to say that he couldn't have started it again?


But the serious speedsolving craze really picked up around 2003, and it was due to Fridrich's site (AFAIK). It looks like both Fridrich's and Petrus's websites date back to 1997, so it wasn't like the creation of either site started the new cubing movement by itself. Instead, modern speedcubing basically started with a few motivated young people learning from the old masters (over the internet and through coincedence), and without Fridrich's site that may not have happened. "What if CFOP had never been invented" is a pretty unlikely hypothetical, but I think if there was that level of lack of cube knowledge it would have been even harder to start up a community later on, something which is already incredibly difficult after a craze has been dormant for some 20 years!



megaminxwin said:


> EDIT: Also, it looks like TwistyPuzzles.com managed to get started without Fridrich's help at all, so it could've restarted through there, but it looks like a [citation needed] kind of thing. Still interesting though.


Well, I remember that while I was really starting to get interested in cubes (so maybe 2005ish?) it was more or less a big database of puzzles, intended mainly for the kind of people who were interested in collecting and solving puzzles for the mental exercise of it, similar to the people who are interested in other types of puzzles such as metal disentanglement and sliding piece puzzles. Very few people there were interested in speed until well after the speedcubing community took off. I think that if the Fridrich method hadn't existed, it'd still be likely that twistypuzzles would exist, but I don't think they'd have thought to organize a serious speedcubing competition - just like how we don't see any competitions in disentanglement or sliding piece puzzles.


----------



## insane569 (Apr 25, 2012)

I would be the WR holder with a time of 15.69 seconds using Petrus. Go Petrus!!!


----------



## tx789 (Apr 25, 2012)

22.95, maybe it would of never came back
if it did 5-8 sec then


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 25, 2012)

insane569 said:


> I would be the WR holder with a time of 15.69 seconds using Petrus. Go Petrus!!!



IIRC Charlie uses Petrus: http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2007COOP01


----------

