# Which one is faster: ZZ or CFOP?



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

Two questions :

1) If you tried both, which method do you think is the fastest: ZZ-VH* or CFOP, for 2H on 3x3x3 ?
*ZZ-VH is ZZ with COLL then EPLL.

2) Among the top 20 cubers, who uses ZZ (a variant or another) as their main method?

Thanks


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Methods don't have speeds.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> Two questions :
> 
> 1) If you tried both, which method do you think is the fastest: ZZ-VH* or CFOP, for 2H on 3x3x3 ?
> *ZZ-VH is ZZ with COLL then EPLL.
> ...


 
My answer to question 2 - Without looking - Nobody. Just guessing there.

To number one:

What is longer, a piece of string, or a piece of liquorice?


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

I’m sure you’re clever enough to understand the questions.


----------



## Innocence (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> I’m sure you’re clever enough to understand the questions.


 
Not sure who you're talking to here, but we both understood your questions, or implied that we thought we did by attempting to answer.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

No one can say that CFOP is objectively faster than ZZ or vice versa.

One may be faster than another for a specific person, but that doesn't mean it is actually faster overall.

Also, trying to find meaning by looking at heavily skewed statistics is a bad idea.


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 18, 2011)

LOL I read that as skew*b*ed statistics...


----------



## Vinny (Apr 18, 2011)

Methods don't matter, people can get fast with almost any method (ok, maybe not beginner's, but you get my point). 

A good example of a CFOP solver is obviously Feliks.
A good example of a ZZ solver is a small kitten
A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle

You can get great times with any method. It takes practice and motivation.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Vinny said:


> A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle


 
BigGreen


----------



## Godmil (Apr 18, 2011)

Vinny said:


> A good example of a Roux solver is Waffle


 
Kirjava


----------



## JyH (Apr 18, 2011)

Vinny said:


> Methods don't matter, people can get fast with almost any method (ok, maybe not beginner's, but you get my point).
> 
> A good example of a CFOP solver is obviously Feliks.
> A good example of a ZZ solver is a small kitten
> ...


 
Wow...Way to leave out Thom right in front of him.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Wha, I don't care. It's just important to point out BigGreen as he's the fastest.


----------



## BC1997 (Apr 18, 2011)

no method is faster than the other, just the cuber.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

Vinny said:


> Methods don't matter, people can get fast with almost any method (ok, maybe not beginner's, but *you get my point*).
> 
> A good example of a CFOP solver is obviously Feliks.
> A good example of a ZZ solver is a small kitten
> ...


 
I get your point but I don't share your opinion. You're right: practice and motivation are the reasons for which one is more at ease with one method.
But what top athlete uses Scissors for high jump? Who uses natural bids for Bridge? What can you conclude?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> But what top athlete uses Scissors for high jump? Who uses natural bids for Bridge? What can you conclude?


 
This doesn't prove anything. Would you conclude that the Scissors *must* be the best method before the Flop became widespread because all the top athletes used it? Of course you would, and you would have been wrong.

If the top 20 averages were set with Waterman because no one gave CFOP a chance would you conclude that it was the best method?


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

I would have concluded that Scissors was the best *known* method.

Are you saying that nobody in the top 20 has ever tried ZZ?
I thought they know numerous methods and hundred algs.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> I would have concluded that Scissors was the best *known* method.
> 
> Are you saying that nobody in the top 20 has ever tried ZZ?
> I thought they know numerous methods and hundred algs.


 
Woah woah woah. Just because a top 20 cube has tried ZZ doesn't make ZZ a top 20 method. I'm pretty sure that EVERY SINGLE TOP 20 CUBER tried LBL. It must be the best then, right? Because every top cuber has not only tried it, but used it.


----------



## Escher (Apr 18, 2011)

Lol this is a nub debate. 

Yeah I know ZZ and have 12.xx averages with it, Spef has sub 11ed. It's a great method (and I imagine there will be sub 9 solvers with it one day) but no way can I be bothered to put in the thousands of hours it would take to get as fast as I am with CFOP as with ZZ, especially since I can barely be bothered to practice cubing at all any more.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> Are you saying that nobody in the top 20 has ever tried ZZ?
> I thought they know numerous methods and hundred algs.


 
There's a difference between knowing a method and being able to perform it as proficiently as your 'main' method. (I can't believe this has to be pointed out to you)

This thread comes around every few months on this forum, it usually ends with me trying to explain to someone who doesn't quite understand the situation about how you cannot use statistics to show that one method is better than another. 

Feel free to ignore my question about Waterman, I know thinking about the answer may make you question what you believe.


----------



## freshcuber (Apr 18, 2011)

People use Fridrich because it's a simple concept and very easy to improve with. It's also an easy transition from a noob LBL method to F2L and a 2-look LL. I dabbled with ZZ a few months ago and I really liked it but then I just stopped practicing. If someone can perform EOLine as fast as a great Fridrich solver does cross I think ZZ can be just as fast. The only problem is that most methods other than Fridrich arent used widely enough to know. If Faz used ZZ or Roux he'd probably still be sub-10. If that has any relevance. 


tl;dr It's the cuber, not the method.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> There's a difference between knowing a method and being able to perform it as proficiently as your 'main' method. (I can't believe this has to be pointed out to you)
> 
> This thread comes around every few months on this forum, it usually ends with me trying to explain to someone who doesn't quite understand the situation about how you cannot use statistics to show that one method is better than another.
> 
> Feel free to ignore my question about Waterman, I know thinking about the answer may make you question what you believe.


 
I use official results in competition to know who's the elite of this sport. What’s wrong?

The elite is supposed to find and try better methods and equipments. ZZ didn’t pop out last week and isn’t widely use by the elite. So either the elite is lazy or ZZ has been tried and rejected, I suppose.

I understood that you don’t share my opinion.

I know nothing about Waterman.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> I use official results in competition to know who's the elite of this sport. What’s wrong?
> 
> The elite is supposed to find and try better methods and equipments. ZZ didn’t pop out last week and isn’t widely use by the elite. So either the elite is lazy or ZZ has been tried and rejected, I suppose.



Funny, ZZ is the newest 'mainstream' method.

I don't think you understand speedcubing very well, it's not like you can 'try' ZZ for a bit and see if it is better.



Pyjam said:


> I know nothing about Waterman.



I guess you don't understand the question.

How about this;

If the top 20 averages were set with ZZ because no one gave CFOP a chance would you conclude that it was the best method?


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> The elite is supposed to find and try better methods and equipments.



ZZ and Roux were both developed by people who were not "elite." The designers at Dayan, Alpha, MF8, and V-Cubes are not elite solvers either. It is the job of the elite to be fast at solving.



Pyjam said:


> ZZ didn’t pop out last week



You're right, it popped out in July of 2008, which is _after_ most of the elite started cubing. And as Kirjava said, it is the newest "mainstream" method. Roux came out in 2003, and Petrus and CFOP are many decades old.



Pyjam said:


> and isn’t widely use by the elite. So either the elite is lazy or ZZ has been tried and rejected, I suppose.


 
So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that may or may not eventually be faster makes me "lazy?"


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Apr 18, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that *may or may not eventually be faster* makes me "lazy?"


 So one _does_ have the potential to be faster than another?

I think that's what the OP is trying to get at.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> So one _does_ have the potential to be faster than another?


 
No. Someone that is elite may or may not get faster by switching methods. You interpreted him incorrectly.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 18, 2011)

Sorry I forget that this is the internet and morons will completely disregard what they know to be my intention in order to exploit a flaw in my wording. Allow me to rephrase: "So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that I may or may not eventually be faster with makes me 'lazy?'"


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Funny, ZZ is the newest 'mainstream' method.
> 
> I don't think you understand speedcubing very well, it's not like you can 'try' ZZ for a bit and see if it is better.


I can't judge a method after a week but I'm confident that many in the top 20 can after a serious try.



Kirjava said:


> I guess you don't understand the question.
> 
> How about this;
> 
> If the top 20 averages were set with ZZ because no one gave CFOP a chance would you conclude that it was the best method?


I'm not sure of the pertinence of your argument. I answered that it's unlikely that nobody in the top 20 has tried ZZ, because the top speedcubers know many methods and hundreds of algs, and they're are supposed to try new methods and adopt better ones.
Is it possible that ZZ is the new “mainstream method” but nobody among the bests has tried it seriously? Really? Maybe but it's unbelievable.



DavidWoner said:


> ZZ and Roux were both developed by people who were not "elite." The designers at Dayan, Alpha, MF8, and V-Cubes are not elite solvers either. It is the job of the elite to be fast at solving.


There are always theoreticians. I meant, in a wide variety of disciplines, the elite keeps abreast of new methods.



DavidWoner said:


> Sorry I forget that this is the internet and morons will completely disregard what they know to be my intention in order to exploit a flaw in my wording. Allow me to rephrase: "So not wanting to throw away years of work on CFOP in pursuit of something that I may or may not eventually be faster with makes me 'lazy?'"


You said it. What was my intention?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> I can't judge a method after a week but I'm confident that many in the top 20 can after a serious try.



*You do not understand how speedcubing works. * You cannot become as proficient as you are with your current method with a new one in a week.



Pyjam said:


> I'm not sure of the pertinence of your argument. I answered that it's unlikely that nobody in the top 20 has tried ZZ, because the top speedcubers know many methods and hundreds of algs, and they're are supposed to try new methods and adopt better ones.
> Is it possible that ZZ is the new “mainstream method” but nobody among the bests has tried it seriously? Really? Maybe but it's unbelievable.



So I see you're still scared to answer the question. Did you even read it?

I refuse to reiterate myself further.


----------



## Escher (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> I can't judge a method after a week but I'm confident that many in the top 20 can after a serious try.
> ...they're are supposed to try new methods and adopt better ones.


 
The only judgement people in the top 20 will be making is 'this is a cool method but I'm already way too good at x to bother with practicing this instead'.

The opportunity cost of switching methods is far, far too high unless the method they're switching to is undeniably far better.


----------



## freshcuber (Apr 18, 2011)

Before your arguments were just stupid and poorly thought out but now you're starting to troll. The top twenty don't use ZZ because they were using Fridrich before ZZ was even thought of. If I spend even six months on a method I'm unlikely to take a chance and change it in the hopes I could maybe be faster. The top twenty can probably sub-15 a lot of methods with little effort but to sub-12, 11, or 10 a method takes A LOT more time. Would you switch methods if you were already sub-12 with Fridrich?

I don't know why you think the top twenty are lab rats that are supposed to test new things. Very few cubers know hundreds of algs for 3x3 speed. They also don't use many methods in competition. I can solve with two speed methods but I only practice one. The only cuber who uses multiple methods in competition is Statu Korick and he averages 16, not bad by any means but nowhere near top twenty.


----------



## Pyjam (Apr 18, 2011)

Calm down, if you please. Some are becoming arrogant here. I ask questions, I would like explanation, and I receive condescending answers by people questioning my logic.



Kirjava said:


> *You do not understand how speedcubing works. * You cannot become as proficient as you are with your current method with a new one in a week.
> 
> So I see you're still scared to answer the question. Did you even read it?
> 
> I refuse to reiterate myself further.


Did you read my answer? I can't answer you question because it supposes that nobody in the top 20 has given ZZ a real chance. It could be the case but I think it's unlikely. As the premise of your question is false, I have no answer.



Escher said:


> The only judgement people in the top 20 will be making is 'this is a cool method but I'm already way too good at x to bother with practicing this instead'.
> 
> The opportunity cost of switching methods is far, far too high unless the method they're switching to is undeniably far better.


Thank you for your argued answer.
What if you knew someone (in the top 100) who becomes better after switching to ZZ? Could it convince you to switch? Maybe you already know one or more persons in this situation.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 18, 2011)

I believe it just depends on what suits you really... I am actually in the situation Pyjam mentioned, well kind of... I switched to Roux 2 months ago... Didn't cost me much- I wasn't too far with fridrich. If you hate your method, change it quick.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Pyjam said:


> Calm down, if you please. Some are becoming arrogant here. I ask questions, I would like explanation, and I receive condescending answers by people questioning my logic.



I've always been arrogant. I can't help but insult the verbal diarrhea you're inflicting on me.



Pyjam said:


> Did you read my answer?



I don't see an answer to the question. You have to say that you agree or disagree with my statement.



Pyjam said:


> I can't answer you question because it supposes that nobody in the top 20 has given ZZ a real chance. It could be the case but I think it's unlikely.



It *is* the case. You really don't understand what you're talking about.



Pyjam said:


> As the premise of your question is false, I have no answer.



Think of it as a hypothetical.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 18, 2011)

freshcuber said:


> The only cuber who uses multiple methods in competition is Statu Korick


 I'm sure there likely are others, even on speedsolving.
Also, my case is irrelevant anyway.

Switching methods hardcore takes a long time. A very long time.


----------



## freshcuber (Apr 18, 2011)

Yea someplace in there should have been "that I know of" but I seem to have forgotten it.


----------



## a small kitten (Apr 18, 2011)

Don't have any answers to your terribly vague first question but I know from first hand experience that ZZ has a lot of potential for OH. And possibly feet.

As for your second question, probably none.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 18, 2011)

This thread is going nowhere but down, and quickly.


----------

