After taking some time to do some research and what-not, I've come to learn something--maybe a bit surreal, I don't know, but you seemed like the best person to say this to. I don't think it's make a decent thread.
Why you? Well you are the only person to discuss to me about this subject of "doing what it takes to win".
To refresh you on the subject the last thing you said was--
"Top players do not avoid infinites/locks/chains for reasons you think they do. If a top player avoids such a tactic, it is because they did use it and eventually discovered that it is not as powerful as it originally seemed. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you presented in your signature. Top players are top players because they do anything and everything to win.
Were you around during the Melee era? The top players used quite a few infinites/chains/locks. Wobbling, shine infinites, etc. were very common. In Brawl, it is not as much the case because top players are good at avoiding being caught in an infinite. It has nothing to do with your philosophy of 'rising above mediocrity'."
At this point I'm a little less than indifferent on the subject, but I've come to some sort of a conclusion, although I've yet to interpret it right.
After watching a few videos and some recent experiences, I've seen what you mean, although I wasn't blind to it before, that people would really do what it takes to win. And thats great and all, but what defines something as cheap?
Granted from what I've seen and heard if anything is labeled as cheap, then the accuser would be indefinitely labeled as a "scrub". But there are things that have been acknowledged as too cheap--or too broken, and therefore banned from tournaments.
Taking from one of your examples, wobbling, at first glance it seems pretty straight forward, and it is indeed what one would call cheap, or clear evidence of someone doing what it takes to win. I've also heard that this technique was banned for being, in a sense, overly effective, or "(too) cheap"
Then there's planking, from what I've been told was ledge stalling, I don't know what became of resolving the planking controversy, but I do know that stalling--in general--is banned as a rule of the SBR, but then what becomes of planking? From what I've seen, it's still perfectly legal, and is used quite alot in doubles. Then, following another example of yours, shine infinites, although this do require a learning curve to achieve--which may be why it is still considered legal from what I've seen--it is still hard to avoid once in, like wobbling.
Now, my question is who labels something as rightfully cheap? Yes the answer can be straightforward, but even with sound reasoning, if a nobody were to make a similar argument before the same result was decided by the SBR, then that poor person would be labeled a scrub, just on the general principle that he appropriately labeled a technique as cheap. On that note, why was wobbling banned, if several other elements remained of equal or similar effectiveness.
Again, not being in the SBR, on a possibility of the unknown, I can understand that these things underwent (I'm assuming) long and decisive debate of their overall potential and usefulness aside from their base usage and a decision was made based on that, but even so, how is that all too different from that one guy who complained about it beforehand?
My primary confusion/issue with the common scrub is that one a small technicality, it applies to everyone.
True a scrub through and through would have a much wider range of things that are to be called "cheap", but there will always be one thing that someone would think as unfair to the metagame, or there would be a personal preference of refraining to do a certain tactic--in a different context, setting up personal rules that limits their winning potential.
I've read M2K complain about ledge camping, although a legal tactic, is very much so considered unfair--or to not mince words, cheap--by him, at the same time, I've seen Plank in action, he spams Mach Tornado, beyond any proper adjective to perfectly emphasize how much he does so, yes it is effective, and some--or most would consider it a cheap tactic, but apparently he's won tournaments like this.
Now the spamming isn't the issue here, he's just, like you're saying, doing any-and-everything to win.
But why doesn't everyone else do this?
If the truly desire to win, and would do everything they have in their power to win, wouldn't the just do that? Plank proved quite well that mach tornado alone gains alot of merit at the tournament scene, yes there are ways around it, people have found them, and are looking for more, but this just makes it more viable to not be banned.
"Don't get hit"?
Surprisingly enough, people don't use this tactic, why?
Going off of your example, perhaps it's because they realized that this tactic isn't as effective as another that they can conjure up, this is a possibility, but the probability of this doesn't seem as plausible--only when looking at it from a theoretical perspective it might, but this tactic has proved to work.
People are getting smart and such shameless usage of it may not bode well, but it is an effective move none the less, this applies to any technique, people learn to avoid them a bit better.
But the question still remains, and it begs the answer.
Because maybe on a limb, they think it's too cheap?
I don't know, I can't get into their heads and find the answer, but alot of insight on the nature of a scrub as made me question alot.
Granted this doesn't make everyone a scrub, but the term is a bit shaky.