Ban coaching

[Overswarm]

My point was that you shouldn't give up on dealing with undesirable practices just because it's not easy. This was mainly in the context of controlling what the crowd says, of which I already stated that that's not very realistic. That said, some things will always be on a case by case basis as rulesets don't cover everything that can happen at an event, mainly outside of the game.

If something isn't easy specifically because it requires resources you don't consistently have, it definitely means you should give up. Half-assing rules like "no coaching" just result in inconsistent implementation, which is unfair. We don't need tournament rules to be enforced like speeding tickets.

The negatives of coaching are not worse than inconsistent punishment for breaking rules.

 

[<π]

Do you think this is a desirable situation? I get that new players are already at a disadvantage for various reasons, so why stack the deck against them even more? A fighting game community is a meritocracy and as such, I prefer external advantages to be kept to a minimum. I acknowledge that an assertive person will be able to get into the scene that much quicker, but I feel like the treshold for hitting up a player for practice is significantly lower than asking them to coach you through a tournament. While I will play just about anyone, I can not say the same for coaching, but rest assured that if my younger sister were to enter a tournament with coaching allowed, no low level space animal would get past "her" edge guarding.

I honestly do. When I started playing this game competitively 9 or 10 years ago I thought I was prettty good. I went off to college and beat every single person on the grounds. And then I was introduced to the CFL melee comunity. I consistently won 2 lost 2. Sometimes to people with coaches, sometimes to people without. I stuck to it anyway dispite being out classed in this strong region. Eventually I became a part of it, I had people willing to coach me. people to train with and become better with, not because communicating during matches was banned but because I gave up the time in effort in order to get what everyone else already had.

And again when I left FL to go to CT. I didn't have that community behind me when I became a part of that scene. I did well there coming out of the CFL power house, but Cort, Brookman and PC bodied me. But I had drive! I had to earn a family here too by attending events and fests giving up my own resources. If it fair that I was able make that time and other weren't? I think so. I had TWO full time jobs and still made it to events and fests without a car. I'd sit in my room and practice tech skill till I fell asleep. I worked very hard because you can get anything if your are willing to sacrifice for it! You just have to decided whether that sacrifice is worth it.

Something being hard to regulate doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, but I think in this case it isn't worth the sacrifices that would need to be made to regulate and enforce them.

Collusion and bracket manipulation are hard to regulate as well, but high profile events have still enforced punishment for these things. Realistically it won't be easy to manage the crowd, but in practice it's not quite the same anyway. If the crowd is small you can easily pick out a person actually saying helpful things and in a large crowd they will typically be drowned out.

With enough effort you can police it but... is it worth it? What are the solutions? what are the definitions? You can have a guy sit next to you? If that going to stop you from hearing your buddy coaching you from the croud? Can you realisically stop him? Who do you punish and how? All of these questions have answers but they come at costs. And I don't think the costs are really worth the outcome.

Several people have made the argument that coaching makes for better matches (true, potentially) and better players, but I disagree with the latter. If you want to help players, they are better served by you sitting down with them and reviewing their matches play by play. Pointing out habits is the most effective short term coaching, but what lesson is in that? What do you learn when someone tells you to go in or retreat? You might learn in the sense that you pick up on effective decision-making, but usually someone is simply feeding you answers that you won't have time to reflect on as you are playing a tournament match.

I think it varries player by player. I learn best by watching others, I don't like getting advice from people because no one out there plays the game the way I do. I've played players who are at thier best when someone is coaching them, telling them what I'm doing wrong, my habits. I've seen the same coaches be a huge detriment to different players while telling them the same things causing them to second guess thier acurate reads. I imagine some players DO play better sitting down after the match and watching recordings of themselves too. its all different per player.
I personally want to play people at thier best. If there is some blind tech skill god who needs a coach to perform I want him to have that coach so I can say I beat him at his best... but thats just me.

I DO understand the flip side of the coin. I honestly do. But I truely feel since all of the information is there for both players to see coaching does not produce any unfair advantages for a player.

 

[z00ted]

Coaching encourages competition and a stronger metagame.

Anything that allows my opponent to play better or gain knowledge within a fight for more entertainment and higher quality of a match I'm all for. I don't mind when it's learned - if it's there, use it. More than often these aren't "secrets" within the community or anything. And it also depends on if they even have the technical ability to take it into consideration and then APPLY it properly within a game right then and there. Some players do and can flip a match around in their favor while with others it may cost them the game before resorting back to their previous strategy.

Plus I just love the whole "unity" / "crew" idea behind a ton of your friends popping up mid-set and spilling out all their encouragement for a fellow player. The hype. Someone in the crowd not being able to contain their knowledge and rushing over to liven the experience. Part of what makes Smash so unique in the fighting game community is how heavily it relies on counterpicks and strategy at the break. That moment we see players on stream w/ their hands upon their head trying to find SOME sort of way to seize the set. In nearly every tournament I've attended and from what I've seen, trying to put a dampen down coaching is weak and encourages a loser's type mentality.

You don't see results threads with a coach's player's name next to their placement on top of their own. Because at the end of the set no-one remembers any of that heat of the moment stuff. Comes down to who was holding the controller and the scene that supports them. East Coast vs. West Coast. America vs. Japan, etc. I'd love to see more of that. We've went over a decade without this being too controversial under a healthy ruleset, I think people are blowing this up way farther than it needs to be.

With a coach? Yeah, a good player can win a game. But the better player will adapt to win a set.
No johns.

 

[Armada]

I would definitely like to hear what the top 10 players have to say about this

Coaching should be banned for sure!
It's up to the player to make the decisions and adjustments necessary to win. The tournament is the final test and if you can't win on your own you should not win at all.

 

[AbidingTruth]

I'd like to mention that in professional boxing, the fighters are allowed to be coached and take advice from their coaches between rounds. Is this not the same premise, that boxing should only be between the fighters? Clearly there must be a reason for this to be allowed then, and I believe that while someone can tell you what you're doing right/wrong, it is still up to the player/fighter to actually make the change themselves.

 

[JPRyan04]

This argument is ridiculous. You act like nobody ever gets advice in any other sport. What you're arguing is like you fighting in a UFC match, then complaining that a coach gave the other fighter advice after the round ended.

 

[Armada]

I would definitely like to hear what the top 10 players have to say about this

Coaching should be banned for sure!
It's up to the player to make the decisions and adjustments necessary to win. The tournament is the final test and if you can't win on your own you should not win at all.

 

[TreK]

I'm definitely not against coaching in principle, though I may see the need for a Gentlemen's Coaching Clause to even out the playing field.

However, I do have a problem with coaching when it takes too long between matches. It should be considered stalling and should get you kicked out of the tournament.

 

[Nihonjin]

You call a TO during the set as its going on. The "no stalling" rule doesn't mean 'camping', it means literally stalling infinitely in a way you can't be stopped (peach bomber, jigglypuff's rising pound under battlefield, infinite luigi ladder, etc.); calling a TO over stops the action itself and generally results in a warning. Further actions along this vein result in being DQed.

How will you confirm that the person was stalling if you weren't there to witness it? Are you willing to ban a player because people claim he broke the rules? Do you want to put a TO at every TV to prevent it from happening?

Your exact reasoning applies to stalling and a bunch of other rules already in effect. Yet you're not arguing to legalize infinite Rising Pound. What gives?

I played Brawl. You're wrong.

Right.

Before the rule is set in place, yes.

We'll first have to agree on said rule though, don't we?

Man from crowd yells "ALL THIS GUY DOES IS GRAB, HE SUCKS". He's being goofy and antagonistic, trying to get a laugh. It helps the opponent who is getting grabbed a lot. This man in the crowd isn't in the game anymore. In fact, he's not entered into the smash community; he's here for Street Fighter.

Wat do.

You're off topic. We're not discussing the crowd.

So coaching is allowed as long as you're in the crowd? Got it.

It's a separate issue that I'm not going to address in this topic.

Because the rules don't apply to everyone. Seriously, they don't.

They should. So this isn't an argument.

 

[Crezyte]

In light of a recent discussion on Facebook I felt the need to properly address this issue (again).

What I’m against is this:
Anyone analyzing habits, weaknesses and/or tactics and giving detailed advice to a player during a tournament set in an attempt to influence the outcome.

Agreed. But do people always ask for advice or are they wanting support? Why not a prep talking coach?

 

[Engo]

For the people mentioning boxing, there's other sports like tennis where there is NO coaching in the middle of a set. So it's not like every other 1on1 sport is the same.

And either way these sports all have regulated coaching where the player, coach, and possibly others enter the competition as a team. In that case it's fair because you're technically a team and you're getting coached by a team mate who is registered in the competition just like you are.It's regulated unlike in smash. Like Amsah said we either regulate coaching or ban it. Regulating it seems pretty impossible in the current structure and culture of smash tournaments so banning it is the only fair way to maintain the 1v1 competition we're supposed to be striving to have.

 

[flaw]

I don't care either way, but just wanted to point out that in boxing and chess, I bet the coaches are "registered" as that person's coach. They have the same coach the entire tournament, and the coach doesn't play in the tournament him/herself. All of which was already talked about.

Edit: Engo said it better hah

 

[z00ted]

For the people mentioning boxing, there's other sports like tennis where there is NO coaching in the middle of a set. So it's not like every other 1on1 sport is the same.

Look at the overall attitude of tennis match and the crowd that spectates.
Then look at a boxing ring's crowd or the pit of a stage at a national for smash.

Part of this is dependent on tradition/what the particular audience wants from their experience.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

You're off topic. We're not discussing the crowd.



It's a separate issue that I'm not going to address in this topic.

I am forced to question your motives here. I think you're simply trying to win the argument here if you're going to try to dismiss this issue which is integral to the problems with enforcing a coaching rule. Unless you can give me a way to deal with that Street Fighter player, then you don't have a way to enforce the rule.

 

[Engo]

Look at the overall attitude of tennis match and the crowd that spectates.
Then look at a boxing ring's crowd or the pit of a stage at a national for smash.

Part of this is dependent on tradition/what the particular audience wants from their experience.

I don't see how the audience matters at all in a discussion about banning player coaching. This is about what's fair to the players for the purposes of a 1v1 competition. The crowd doesn't really come into it.

 

[Phaazoid]

I am forced to question your motives here. I think you're simply trying to win the argument here if you're going to try to dismiss this issue which is integral to the problems with enforcing a coaching rule. Unless you can give me a way to deal with that Street Fighter player, then you don't have a way to enforce the rule.

I have to agree with this, and everything @ Overswarm is saying.

The argument that he's trying to put forth is that there are legitimate reasons both for and against banning coaching, but there may be no practical way to enforce such a thing, and the inconsistencies that the different levels of enforcement would spawn would be much worse for the community than coaching could ever be.

It's one thing to have an idealistic argument about whether coaching should or should not happen, but you need to analyze actual methods of implementation before trying to make a decision. The crowd is not off topic, because coaching can come from the crowd, and if you can't stop that then you can't effectively enforce it at all, and you're riddled with inconsistency.

 

[Kneato]

I've seen so many people make the "Smash is equivalent to Boxing" comparison, but that isn't true. Neither is it the same as chess.

What makes a good chess player is 100% mental skill. What makes a good boxer is something along the likes of half physical strength/reflexes, and half mental skill. A good smasher relies on MUCH more mental skill than physical reflexes. If you don't believe that, take for example Borp, a player with literally no tech skill whatsoever who still wins tournaments via excellent spacing, reads, and adaption.

This means that when you are coached in smash as compared to boxing, it can have a much larger impact on the outcome of a match.

Additionally, a boxer can only see his opponent when he fights. He has a limited view of the fight compared to an outside observer who can see both fighters. When a smasher fights, he sees exactly what any outside observer sees, and a good smasher who has the skill to adapt should be able to come to the same conclusions about their game as any outside observer of the game. If they can't, that is a weak point of their own game.

Lastly, unlike boxing, coaching is not regulated in the smash community. Unlike boxing, not every single person in a tournament has a coach, and it is unreasonable for that to be expected of people. How fair is it to have two people fight, one with a coach and one without?

For example, you are good at the game and you bring your friend with very little experience to a tournament. He is in pools and is playing other people with little experience. Between sets, you tell him what the other guy is doing wrong, what moves he should spam, that he should shield grab the opponent more because he always short hops in with an aerial . This simply isn't fair to the other guy who doesn't have a coach because he is being expected to come to these conclusions by himself.

And for those of you arguing that it makes more more intense sets/matches, this is a competitors sport, it doesn't necessarily exist to make spectators happy.

In conclusion, coaching would only be "fair" if there was some way to ensure every player had a dedicated coach for every game, which is unreasonable, and would still take away from the game rather than add to it by removing the mental aspect of adaption from play.

 

[Engo]

I am forced to question your motives here. I think you're simply trying to win the argument here if you're going to try to dismiss this issue which is integral to the problems with enforcing a coaching rule. Unless you can give me a way to deal with that Street Fighter player, then you don't have a way to enforce the rule.

Someone in the crowd isn't going to be able to yell out any decent analysis, especially in a loud tournament atmosphere. On top of that both players have equal chances of hearing what that person in the crowd yelled out so it's fair. That's not the same as someone whispering some well thought out analysis of your last match into your ear between games telling you what you did wrong and how to fix it.

 

[Phaazoid]

In conclusion, coaching would only be "fair" if there was some way to ensure every player had a dedicated coach for every game, which is unreasonable, and would still take away from the game rather than add to it by removing the mental aspect of adaption from play.

Is it more unreasonable than trying to stop all players from having any human interaction during sets? This means soundproofing crowds, not allowing phone calls, even vision of other players, because one could develop hand signs to mean different things, which is just as bad.

And what about talking to his opponent? What if the opponent accidentally says something that helps the player realize a strategy? What if he does it on purpose? It sounds crazy, sure, but it could happen, and you'd need rules.

And if you have tournaments where such rules are enforced, some where they aren't, and some where they are but inconsistently, you get a divide in the community arguably worse than what coaching could cause.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Someone in the crowd isn't going to be able to yell out any decent analysis, especially in a loud tournament atmosphere. On top of that both players have equal chances of hearing what that person in the crowd yelled out so it's fair. That's not the same as someone whispering some well thought out analysis of your last match into your ear between games telling you what you did wrong and how to fix it.

Oh, so it's okay if between games I yell you advice. "HEY, DON'T BAN DREAMLAND IF YOU WANNA GET BODIED!" Then you shout "HE'S ROLLING A LOT!" Then you yell "GO BAIR HIM WHEN YOU KNOCK HIM OFF, HE CAN'T STOP YOU!"

That's coaching. You can't stop it. I didn't even enter. You can ask me to leave, but I've already done it.

 

[Red Rice]

Coaching should be banned for sure!
It's up to the player to make the decisions and adjustments necessary to win. The tournament is the final test and if you can't win on your own you should not win at all.

I agree with the original post and you. You and Mango have some of the best adaptation skills mid set. The amount of times you've come back in a set with a last match 3 or 4 stock is amazing.

 

[<π]

@ Engo have you ever been to a tournament? I've been coached and HAVE coached effectively from the crowd.

 

[Phaazoid]

Someone in the crowd isn't going to be able to yell out any decent analysis, especially in a loud tournament atmosphere. On top of that both players have equal chances of hearing what that person in the crowd yelled out so it's fair. That's not the same as someone whispering some well thought out analysis of your last match into your ear between games telling you what you did wrong and how to fix it.

What @ #HBC | Ryker said. If you can't specifically quantify it, you can't ban it. And if you can, I bet important parts of whatever you quantify can be yelled from a crowd.

 

[Engo]

Oh, so it's okay if between games I yell you advice. "HEY, DON'T BAN DREAMLAND IF YOU WANNA GET BODIED!" Then you shout "HE'S ROLLING A LOT!" Then you yell "GO BAIR HIM WHEN YOU KNOCK HIM OFF, HE CAN'T STOP YOU!"

That's coaching. You can't stop it. I didn't even enter. You can ask me to leave, but I've already done it.

Both players have equal chance to hear what's being said. It's not even coaching at this point. It's someone yelling something out and both players (if they even hear) it can choose to react to it or not. In a long campy match someone could yell out "Hurry up and finish this is boring" and both players might choose to play more agressive or not. Someone yelling from the crowd is basically the same thing.It's out in the public for everyone to hear. It's not the same as someone whispering strategy and advice into your ear for a minute or longer.

It's inconvenient but it's fair. Someone sitting beside you and telling you what to do/what not to do isn't. At locals this can happen a lot more which is when the no coaching rule would need to be enforced the most imo

 

[Master WGS]

How about coaches have to shout all advice they're giving. It'll be hilarious and everyone wins.

 

[smashbroskilla]

I can't stand most players and their coaches when watching on strea/youtube. It kills the hype

 

[tekkie]

how many coaches can i have

can i put off game 2 until i open twitch chat and ask for help

 

[trash?]

coaching will be as easily enforced as the "no stalling" rule that seems to pop up from time to time

which is to say, not at all because it's so subjective that the TO has a better chance of always screwing it up than not

 

[Mithost]

Man from crowd yells "ALL THIS GUY DOES IS GRAB, HE SUCKS". He's being goofy and antagonistic, trying to get a laugh. It helps the opponent who is getting grabbed a lot. This man in the crowd isn't in the game anymore. In fact, he's not entered into the smash community; he's here for Street Fighter.

So coaching is allowed as long as you're in the crowd? Got it.

What a lot of us are trying to explain here is that there is a very real difference between shouting out possible advice in a large crowd of people and sitting next to someone and giving them a detailed analysis and tailored advice/counters in-between sets. Like we said, if the crowd is small, we can single out the person who is trying to give advice mid match or in between games. If the crowd is large, it is very unlikely that the player will be able to sift through the cheering and the chants while playing to find the one or two people trying to give them worthwhile advice.

What "banning coaching" means is to ban someone from being able to consult another player in the middle of a set to ask for information, advice, or guidance that can potentially allow them to learn things they would not have known or to otherwise perform better than they would have if they did not receive such advice. It does not mean that players can get DQ'd if someone else yells out information in a crowd. It also doesn't mean that the crowd has to stay quiet. It just means that Player A cannot talk to Spectator C about how to beat Player B while the game is going on.

 

[Overswarm]

What a lot of us are trying to explain here is that there is a very real difference between shouting out possible advice in a large crowd of people and sitting next to someone and giving them a detailed analysis and tailored advice/counters in-between sets. Like we said, if the crowd is small, we can single out the person who is trying to give advice mid match or in between games. If the crowd is large, it is very unlikely that the player will be able to sift through the cheering and the chants while playing to find the one or two people trying to give them worthwhile advice.

The first major discussion on coaching started when Husband shouted "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" to Wife in a Peach vs. Ganon match; Wife then clearly won handily afterwards.

That's all it took because Husband knew Wife, and Wife was able to use that nugget of information and extrapolate the rest of the matchup from it.

There is literally no difference between shouting advice and whispering it.

As for the "crowd is too large" thing, I've sat on the stage at MLG with players sitting behind. It's never too large. You can always hear them. Starcraft 2 players could hear people shouting from within soundproof booths.

If you want to ban coaching, the crowd is a problem. If you want to ban the idea of coaching to make people feel better, then whatever. I'm talking about the actual act of improving someone's game mid-set.

 

[<π]

What a lot of us are trying to explain here is that there is a very real difference between shouting out possible advice in a large crowd of people and sitting next to someone and giving them a detailed analysis and tailored advice/counters in-between sets. Like we said, if the crowd is small, we can single out the person who is trying to give advice mid match or in between games. If the crowd is large, it is very unlikely that the player will be able to sift through the cheering and the chants while playing to find the one or two people trying to give them worthwhile advice.

What "banning coaching" means is to ban someone from being able to consult another player in the middle of a set to ask for information, advice, or guidance that can potentially allow them to learn things they would not have known or to otherwise perform better than they would have if they did not receive such advice. It does not mean that players can get DQ'd if someone else yells out information in a crowd. It also doesn't mean that the crowd has to stay quiet. It just means that Player A cannot talk to Spectator C about how to beat Player B while the game is going on.

We've gone to tournaments and experienced it first hand we are trying to tell you the difference isn't quantifiable enough to regulate and make clear rules for.

If people want to institute a "no sitting next to" rule, which is nothing that is at least measurable, than maybe thats something that can be enforced. (though again in cramped tourney venues would be difficult to do well) This is very different from the extremely broad "no coaching".

 

[Piisuke]

Actually, yes. Coaching in-between games of a set has been a consistent aspect of Smash. It has also been a mainstay in other similar one-on-one events, including Boxing and Chess. Many team sports revolve entirely around coaches creating a gameplan and the players job is to execute it.

Actually, it is inconsistent and advice during match, which was once accepted, is not accepted either.

And chess has no coach talk in between. Women's tennis has, but not men's and Federer has come and out and said he doesn't like it. And I don't like it with boxing either. Seriously, if you cannot figure out how to beat your opponent, tell me how you deserve to win. That's the whole essence of competition - finding out who's better by merit, not who's better by having a better coach.

Fact is, you do not deserve to win if you cannot beat your opponent by yourself. If you need help from a third party, you're not good enough of a player.

 

[oathkeeper005]

I'm in no way super Great at this game but here is my two cents.

The more I think about this the more I want to Lean in the direction of allowing coaches. But I do see the validity of an argument against them. However I'd much rather see them regulated over outright banned.

Honestly, I feel coaching during a set is a bit more about Moral support and the player having a few seconds to collect themselves, more than it is about a coach giving a game plan. Having a coach lets the player know they have someone telling them "You can do this" and anything else is just tips/options to consider. If you follow a coaches exact instructions your probably just as likely to be hurt by relying on solely on it.

Also people need to stop making comparisons to the crowd, regardless of whether you argee with the OP on anything else, he is completely right that Distinguishing specific useful information from a crowd is entirely different from having a guy who you know you can trust getting right next to you and giving you a tip.

Also people should probably stop shooting down comparisons to other sports on principle as well. Some of them are definitely misguided, but the argument that Smash is not sport "XYZ" is goes both ways, some skills carry over between games even if the way they are executed is different (decision making, reading your opponents, covering options, Hiding what you actually want to do). That said we need to look at these other sports/games as references to draw from and not molds to fill.

 

[Raise]

TONS of eSports have coaching, but I've never been a fan of it. I've always thought that the game should be played entirely from the player. If he wants advice on an upcoming match, he should ask before he sits down to play. Not in between rounds. I don't watch a lot of competitive Starcraft but from what I've seen they have no coaches telling them what units to build and what strategies to run during games. This should be the standard.

If you're playing for money, it should be solely the responsibility of the player for the win. No outside decision making.

 

[trash?]

note that, also, coaching doesn't even need to be spoken; in evo 2009's SF4 grand finals, justin wong knew to pick balrog at one point after losing, because someone on the front row was doing boxing motions to him, with the intent of telling him to switch

 

[Mithost]

The first major discussion on coaching started when Husband shouted "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" to Wife in a Peach vs. Ganon match; Wife then clearly won handily afterwards.

That's all it took because Husband knew Wife, and Wife was able to use that nugget of information and extrapolate the rest of the matchup from it.

There is literally no difference between shouting advice and whispering it.

I think there's a slight difference between "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" and "Hey man, I noticed in the last match that whenever you tried to approach with nair, he rolled behind you and punished with a grab. I think you can fake him out and bait the roll by doing an empty jump, allowing you to punish with a pivot FSmash. Now for stages I heard he doesn't like FD or Dreamland so go to one of those".

 

[Kneato]

Is it more unreasonable than trying to stop all players from having any human interaction during sets? This means soundproofing crowds, not allowing phone calls, even vision of other players, because one could develop hand signs to mean different things, which is just as bad.

And what about talking to his opponent? What if the opponent accidentally says something that helps the player realize a strategy? What if he does it on purpose? It sounds crazy, sure, but it could happen, and you'd need rules.

And if you have tournaments where such rules are enforced, some where they aren't, and some where they are but inconsistently, you get a divide in the community arguably worse than what coaching could cause.

You are purposely arguing an extreme that makes the premise easier to attack. Obviously what you are suggesting is unrealistic, but forcing a player to remain at the TV for the set and not allowing people to sit next to him is both realistic, and arguably effective. No one forces you to talk to your opponent so if you do give him the advantage that way, it's strictly your fault, not an outside factor you have no control of. Past that, let it be up to the TO's judgment to decide if players are trying to communicate with the crowd.

And what do you mean a divide in the community worse than what coaching could cause. A divide in the community means petty arguing, coaching means potential unfair advantages in actual matches.

 

[Phaazoid]

I think there's a slight difference between "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" and "Hey man, I noticed in the last match that whenever you tried to approach with nair, he rolled behind you and punished with a grab. I think you can fake him out and bait the roll by doing an empty jump, allowing you to punish with a pivot FSmash. Now for stages I heard he doesn't like FD or Dreamland so go to one of those".

Not if both statements break the same mental barrier. This is about improving player performance, not about fancy language. If pros can internalize complex playstyles (which they can) and people can assign those playstyles nick names (LIKE HE'S ZELDA) then the crowd can shout things just as performance enhancing as a coach could break down in several minutes.

You are purposely arguing an extreme that makes the premise easier to attack. Obviously what you are suggesting is unrealistic, but forcing a player to remain at the TV for the set and not allowing people to sit next to him is both realistic, and arguably effective. No one forces you to talk to your opponent so if you do give him the advantage that way, it's strictly your fault, not an outside factor you have no control of. Past that, let it be up to the TO's judgment to decide if players are trying to communicate with the crowd.

And what do you mean a divide in the community worse than what coaching could cause. A divide in the community means petty arguing, coaching means potential unfair advantages in actual matches.

I'm trying to get to the point that there's a difference between banning coaching and banning coaches from being able to talk to players.

One is easy to enforce, but doesn't stop coaching from happening in other forms, which could cause the same negatives, and potentially piss people off a lot.

The other is idealistic, but nigh impossible to accurately enforce.

My talk about splitting the community may have sounded exaggerated but imagine if an inconsistently enforced rule changed a major tournament outcome sometime. That would cause some major ire.

The only way I could see anyone honestly enforcing this is to have the players not even be in the same building as the tournament in separate rooms, with someone observing them at all times to make sure there are no phone calls/other communication. Possible but... do you want to go that far? Wouldn't that be even more of a hype kill than coaching?

I understand the ideology between wanting to ban coaches. In fact, I agree with the general argument, it should be about the two players. But in order to ban something, you have to be able to very specifically quantify what you are banning.

So before you suggest banning coaching, can you answer exactly what you are physically banning? And if that doesn't encompass all forms of coaching, that's where inconsistencies arise, and tempers flare.

 

[trash?]

I think there's a slight difference between "PLAY HIM LIKE HE'S ZELDA" and "Hey man, I noticed in the last match that whenever you tried to approach with nair, he rolled behind you and punished with a grab. I think you can fake him out and bait the roll by doing an empty jump, allowing you to punish with a pivot FSmash. Now for stages I heard he doesn't like FD or Dreamland so go to one of those".

both are giving the player a tip, and both had meaning when the player applied it. it doesn't matter how wordy their coaching is, it'd still be coaching, would it not?

the only way this could ever be enforced in giant EVO-like crowds would be if you removed the crowd-player dynamic altogether, and that's not a good thing

 

[tekkie]

there are people reading this right now who think someone spending five minutes of one-on-one time detailing insights the player missed about their opponent and explaining how to abuse those weaknesses is the same as a crowd of people screaming things