# Fridrich or Petrus?



## ShawnCunningham (Apr 10, 2008)

Which is faster? I am currently using CFOP. I would like to learn Petrus as well.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 10, 2008)

I would answer that "yes"


----------



## ShawnCunningham (Apr 10, 2008)

Lofty said:


> I would answer that "yes"



Yes I should learn Petrus?


----------



## Dene (Apr 10, 2008)

I think what he mean to say is, change to Petrus, because there is a new Pro-Petrus club brewing around these parts


----------



## pcwiz (Apr 10, 2008)

There isn't a fact that Petrus is faster than Fridrich (CFOP) or Fridrich is faster than Petrus. It depends how you perform them. Fridrich is more popular and I THINK that most world records breakers (for the 3x3) are using the Fridrich method. The main difference between these two methods is the F2L, and the last layer is almost done the same but in Petrus, your edges are already oriented. So in conclusion, you can't say which one is faster, it depends on how fast your perform the methods.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 10, 2008)

oh... I'm not that much of a Petrus fan Dene... I'm more of an equal opportunity for all methods guy 
and my answer yes was to the question "which is faster"
ps if you are seriously working on Petrus we should start the chat back up and chat about it.


----------



## Dene (Apr 10, 2008)

Oh I very much am serious about it, I like how there is much less restriction than what Fridrich has. And I can get on the chat more for the next two and a half weeks while I'm on holidays. I'll get one going every day from now, and come on if you can!


----------



## badmephisto (Apr 10, 2008)

By Petrus do you mean the extended Petrus with COLL and everything? In that case you can try it, im not sure how well it works, but i do know that most of the record holders use Fridrich.
If you just mean the original Petrus, then no you shouldn't.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 10, 2008)

Way to rain on our Petrus parade...


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 10, 2008)

Why not learn corners-first? A world championship has been won with a CF method (over two Fridrich F2L users and a Petrus user!). And his world title lasted him 21 years.

In the meantime, though, Petrus is a wonderful method, although it hasn't been explored too much.


----------



## brunson (Apr 10, 2008)

I played with Petrus for several weeks when I first picked the cube back up last year. I couldn't get the hang of several aspects of it, so I went to Fridrich and now I'm at around 40 seconds and know all my OLL, PLLs and several open slotting methods for F2L. 

The problems I had with Petrus were locating and keeping track of corners and edges to do my 2x2x2 and 2x2x3 as well as finishing the F2L after edge orientation. After almost a year of Fridrich, I decided to play with Petrus some more on the train a few weeks ago and, though I still wasn't used to keeping track of corners in the early stages, when I hit F2L completion, suddenly it just looked like Fridrich except I was restricted to R and U for my insertions and it was a complete cinch.

Lately I've been skirting around ZBF2L and MGLS techniques for edge control in last slot F2L and I was really surprised at the similarities between them and finishing last layer in Petrus. Spending a few hours with Petrus helped me actually start to understand what ZB and MG are doing rather than just blindly following algorithms.

I think that as each method starts adding techniques and combining more and more steps, like adding COLL to Petrus, and edge control to Fridrich, they start to converge more and more.

I have no place in a discussion of which is faster, but from the standpoint of understanding the cube and building a feel for how things work, I definitely believe learning a bit of both, if not others, too, is a huge benefit.


----------



## ShawnCunningham (Apr 11, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback! ^.^


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 11, 2008)

brunson said:


> I played with Petrus for several weeks when I first picked the cube back up last year. I couldn't get the hang of several aspects of it, so I went to Fridrich and now I'm at around 40 seconds and know all my OLL, PLLs and several open slotting methods for F2L.
> 
> Lately I've been skirting around ZBF2L and MGLS techniques for edge control in last slot F2L and I was really surprised at the similarities between them and finishing last layer in Petrus. Spending a few hours with Petrus helped me actually start to understand what ZB and MG are doing rather than just blindly following algorithms.
> 
> I think that as each method starts adding techniques and combining more and more steps, like adding COLL to Petrus, and edge control to Fridrich, they start to converge more and more.



40 seconds and know all my OLL, PLLs and several open slotting methods for F2L? Work on looking! I got my first sub-30 average using 4 look LL!
I do agree that the methods are converging.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 11, 2008)

Are the methods converging or is Fridrich becoming more like Petrus?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 11, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Are the methods converging or is Fridrich becoming more like Petrus?



X-cross is a very Petrus thing to do (although those two extra edges are so Fridrich), don't you think?

But then we get ugly again and start using CE pairs.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 11, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Are the methods converging or is Fridrich becoming more like Petrus?
> ...



Yes, I just couldn't think of anything that has changed about Petrus...
Maybe they mean how some people use OCLL + PLL?


----------

