Coaching

[Hax]

the reason coaching is fine for melee is because no words uttered during a 10-minute set are enough to make much of a difference. melee is one of the deepest games ever and nothing is going to help you beat someone else other than your own skill from years of practice as well as having a crowd thats on your side; the latter however does not fall under amsah's definition of coaching. having a crowd on my side makes me play 10x better, but once again that is not coaching.

coaching constitutes of simple techniques, i.e. "more bair/fair/[insert move]" that would only make a difference against a poor opponent that will not place in the money anyway. so by banning coaching you are improving the tournament experience for poor players being coached in the sense that they may make it farther using the simple techniques taught to them during the set; however you are worsening it by dehumanizing the tournament environment by silencing it, almost making it like taking an exam in school. considering the ability to participate in a crowd is a major selling point to go to tournaments for both poor and pro players, it far outweighs the chance of it causing a poor player to place a few spots higher.

conclusion:
-coaching does not have an effect on high level play
-may cause players to do better against poor opponents who cannot adapt to simple techniques taught within minutes. in this case the only players who would need the coaching are poor players, which may allow them to place a few spots higher but still not in the money.
-is a major selling point to go to tournaments. its removal would destroy the tournament experience; coaching others is almost as fun as playing smash itself
-generates hype

however none of this matters because no coaching cannot be enforced which should end this debate entirely

 

[KAOSTAR]

You just said that having a crowd on your side isnt coaching.

so it definitely doesnt silence it.

Dont give advice and ur fine. EZ ninja

Also-tournaments include ALL levels of play. Every entrant is not a top professional by any means.

 

[Smasher89]

Everyone at a tournament that are against such ban could just all yell the same advice at the same time, make that half the venue for example and it's even more impossible to enforce.


Lol, this discussion reminds me of dictature (silence) vs democracy("everyones oppinion allowed")
for some reason

 

[Nihonjin]

conclusion:
-coaching does not have an effect on high level play

Here[/URL]

From the moment I started ledge camping, Jman was absolutely clueless on how to approach me or get me to leave the edge. He was dancing around shooting lasers until the moment he decided to just go for it and then I killed him immediately.

Here comes the fun part, Zgetto knows exactly how to handle a Sheik ledge camping, Adam and I have both done this to him so many times, he found ways around it. It's not something technically advanced, it's just positioning himself at a certain part on stage and I won't be able to camp anymore without the risk of losing my stock.

If Zgetto decided, he you know what, I don't like Amsah, I want Jman to win, he could have calmly explained to Jman where to stand and what to do (it's not hard at all, but come up with this strategy takes a little creativity). If Jman then simply followed Zgetto's instructions, I would not have been able to continue my strategy and possibly would have lost.

In my opinion, if Jman won the match after that, I didn't lose to him, but to Zgetto, because without Zgetto he wouldn't have been able to keep me from camping and as we've seen in our actual match, he eventually died trying.

Now, my question to you is, how would you justify something like that?

however none of this matters because no coaching cannot be enforced which should end this debate entirely

To anyone that brought up the "how can you enforce a coaching ban?" point.

take a look at the last tournament that i ran.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=264385

near the bottom of the OP is a rule against coaching. There are a few people in my region that are notorious for coaching. Something that affects me greatly because I can spend 3 out of the 4 of my opponents stocks (or 2 out of 3 in brawl) conditioning him a certain way in order to land a kill move at the end, but the coach can see this much more clearly than the player in the moment. and when the coach informs my opponent of what im been trying to get him to do for the entire match. It can be game and match altering. This is not fair, and thus I put in a rule to keep it from happening.

the people that were notorious for it were given one warning apiece at that event. and they knew that further offences would result in either a loss of games or sets for them and the players they were coaching and possible ejection from the venue.

Its called TOs discretion. There are definitely ways to enforce this. You dont need a concrete system on whats allowable and whats not. If the TO sees something they deem to be unfair, they can issue consequences, end of story.

*just pointing out things that are simply untrue*

 

[Purple]

Nihonjin, just tell me if before-game coaching is allowable to you.. Even though you've said enough to show you support it, i'd rather get an answer.

 

[KAOSTAR]

For the last time roxy. He said that if its b4 the game its not even coaching so it doesnt matter.

Yes its allowed.

 

[Purple]

For the last time roxy. He said that if its b4 the game its not even coaching so it doesnt matter.

Yes its allowed.

How is it not coaching someone before a match? You can tell people the exact same things before a match as you can during. (a person's habits, person's cps, where to cp for what character, etc. etc.)

 

[Nihonjin]

That's still general advice equal to you watching & studying matches of that person on youtube.

It's not comparable to being constantly updated on what's going on in the game you're currently playing.

 

[Hax]

disclaimer: none of this matters because it can't be enforced

wait, so if someone had told jman how to counter a ledgecamping sheik, the best sheik in the world (you) would not have a response? is ledgecamping the secret to your success? forget coaching, this is exactly why Cliffhangers needs to be enforced.

give me an example of coaching altering a match in which legitimate strategies were being utilized by both players. oh wait; there aren't any.

you also did nothing to counter my claims regarding the benefits of coaching; which you completely underestimate. try to imagine a silent smash tournament; i probably wouldn't even go.

 

[Nihonjin]

disclaimer: none of this matters because it can't be enforced

Except that it's already being enforced by a certain TO.

wait, so if someone had told jman how to counter a ledgecamping sheik, the best sheik in the world (you) would not have a response? is ledgecamping the secret to your success? forget coaching, this is exactly why Cliffhangers needs to be enforced.

Whether or not I would have a response is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fundamental problem which is that in my scenario someone else other than my opponent (Jman) countered my strategy and put me at a disadvantage.

give me an example of coaching altering a match in which legitimate strategies were being utilized by both players. oh wait; there aren't any.

I just did.

you also did nothing to counter my claims regarding the benefits of coaching; which you completely underestimate.

I didn't counter because regardless of the benefits cheating coaching brings to the game, it doesn't compare to the problem I have with it, which is that it's unfair and could potentially screw up results.

Spoiler

And also because I've said I'm done with this thread 3 times now and plan to stick with it for longer than a day this time (but already failed because of you)

try to imagine a silent smash tournament; i probably wouldn't even go.

Luckily nobody's arguing that.

Anyway, I'm going to bed, I'm not going to get into this all over again, if you really want to debate me on this post in the MBR and I'll reply tomorrow.

 

[Purple]

lol

"argue with me in a private setting"



so ronery here.

 

[MT_]

Not saying that coaching doesn't have benefits, but I really can't see how people can argue that coaching doesn't have an effect on a match's outcome, even at higher level play. Even if Amsah had a response to countering a ledgecamping sheik, it's highly likely that it's many times less effective than ledgecamping an otherwise clueless opponent. It's these kinds of intricacies that allow coaching to have an effect - they change the course of the match.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Not saying that coaching doesn't have benefits, but I really can't see how people can argue that coaching doesn't have an effect on a match's outcome, even at higher level play. Even if Amsah had a response to countering a ledgecamping sheik, it's highly likely that it's many times less effective than ledgecamping an otherwise clueless opponent. It's these kinds of intricacies that allow coaching to have an effect - they change the course of the match.

I like this a lot.

 

[X1-12]

give me an example of coaching altering a match in which legitimate strategies were being utilized by both players. oh wait; there aren't any.

Don't mind my horrible quoting skills
you find a good melee youtube vid where a coached person actually plays better during a match. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76jzEBqUiw


listen: "yeah I heard shroomed just telling him to back air all the time" (44 seconds)

and even though amsah did it only really for the first stock, he was definately dominating that stock, if shroomed was there next to him constantly reminding him he would have dominated the whole match instead of SH fairiing and crap

 

[Jessup124]

There was nothing wrong with your quote but I edited it just to drive a point.

Not saying that coaching doesn't have benefits, but I really can't see how people can argue that coaching doesn't have an effect on a match's outcome . They change the course of the match.

Exactly! And that is the benefit , it CAN change the course of the match.

I can see why people are in favor of not banning it . The player is playing with a handicap. It is not an independent , SOLO , possible victory.
The player had guidance . This is not skill, this is allowed cheating.

 

[Smasher89]

Ban pokemon stadium, it not really happens alot, but the hole CAN make someone in the lead loose.

 

[X1-12]

Ban pokemon stadium, it not really happens alot, but the hole CAN make someone in the lead loose.

Its possible, why don't you start your own poll about it?

 

[Purple]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q76jzEBqUiw


listen: "yeah I heard shroomed just telling him to back air all the time" (44 seconds)

and even though amsah did it only really for the first stock, he was definately dominating that stock, if shroomed was there next to him constantly reminding him he would have dominated the whole match instead of SH fairiing and crap

The Amsah should've won that set right? Since he started b-airing from the beginning, why wouldn't he have continued?

 

[Nihonjin]

The Amsah should've won that set right? Since he started b-airing from the beginning, why wouldn't he have continued?

Because I didn't actually hear shroomed and after I got rested I was dumb enough to stop doing it even though it worked.

If Shroomed was there to coach me (I mean him sitting next to me) I would have kept this up the entire match (or until it stopped working at least).

 

[KAOSTAR]

IT seemed like something he wouldnt normally have been doing without the coaching.

The reminder kept him bairing, without it he went back to his normal way of playing.


Cant say if he would have lost, can only say advice was taken and it was effective. The player was less effective when there was not advice being given. There could be other reasons, but thats just an observation.

Edit:nevermind lol

 

[Purple]

Because I didn't actually hear shroomed and after I got rested I was dumb enough to stop doing it even though it worked.

If Shroomed was there to coach me (I mean him sitting next to me) I would have kept this up the entire match (or until it stopped working at least). This is actually also shows that someone in the crowd screaming advice isn't the same as actual coaching (even if the advice is the same).

Not exactly, if you heard it in the crowd, (i.e. if shroomed was closer) you would've continued.

 

[Nihonjin]

Not exactly, if you heard it in the crowd, (i.e. if shroomed was closer) you would've continued.

I removed the last part of my post because I worded that wrong and can't be bothered to explain what I meant and it doesn't really matter. I'm against both.

And you're again ignoring the actual point of my post. Which is that if I actually did listen to what Shroomed said (crowd or coach), I might have won the match.

 

[Purple]

Might have, that's the problem. We're not really sure if it would've been game-breaking unless it actually happened. We can try to foresee the outcome as much as we want

"he was ****** that first stock! he would've won!"

"hbox is clearly more skilled, he would've gotten around it."

however we just don't know. That's how it's been for most cases we've thrown around. We don't have distinctive proof of it actually changing the outcome of a game for high-level (i.e. top five in results) play.

 

[da K.I.D.]

If all youre worried about is the top 5 in results why are you bothering to argue the point anyway? its not like youll ever place that high...

If people only care about the top placing people, then why doesnt everyone who doesnt pull top placings in tourneys just be quiet.

OH WAIT

That leaves me, and amsah...

=/

 

[Jessup124]

@ ROXY I'm sure you are not going to answer this question but what is it that you don't like about the idea of competing on your own? It is not a preposterous concept, many competition and true competitors like this idea.

Are you a low level player? Are you insecure, indecisive, panic stricken or prone to anxieties? Do you NOT believe in the concept of doing YOUR best?

What's the fear factor? Why the hesitancy?

 

[Nihonjin]

Might have, that's the problem. We're not really sure if it would've been game-breaking unless it actually happened. We can try to foresee the outcome as much as we want

"he was ****** that first stock! he would've won!"

"hbox is clearly more skilled, he would've gotten around it."

however we just don't know. That's how it's been for most cases we've thrown around. We don't have distinctive proof of it actually changing the outcome of a game for high-level (i.e. top five in results) play.

You've again entirely missed my point.

 

[john!]

reposting because this topic is getting really bad...

"which is more unfair: both players having a chance to have a coach and only one person choosing to have one, or only one person having a chance to have a coach because they have found a way around the coaching ban (such as speaking a different language, watching a reflection in a window, secret code words, etc.)? The former will happen if coaching isn't banned; the latter will happen if coaching is banned."

please note that i AGREE that coaching can have an impact on a game's outcome, and i AGREE that ideally, a fight should be 1v1 or 2v2 without any coaching. but an inherent unfairness arises when you turn the game from "who can get the better coach" to "who can get around the coaching rule more effectively". if it's fairness you want, give everybody the same chance and make everything legal. using your logic that "we should ban something if it creates unfairness or changes the match's outcome", you could justify banning counterpicks or even certain characters (e.g. fox falco and puff have no bad matchups, so they create unfairness and we need to ban them).

 

[Purple]

@ ROXY I'm sure you are not going to answer this question but what is it that you don't like about the idea of competing on your own? It is not a preposterous concept, many competition and true competitors like this idea.

Are you a low level player? Are you insecure, indecisive, panic stricken or prone to anxieties? Do you NOT believe in the concept of doing YOUR best?

What's the fear factor? Why the hesitancy?

Lol @ That.

I don't mind competing on my own. In fact, I've never had someone coach me. Ever. Having the opinion that coaching isn't bad doesn't mean I get coached at all. I never really felt I've needed it. I've been coached against, and still won. Sure, it's mid level. But it doesn't really matter to me; I feel if I'm more skilled than them, I'll beat them. If they need a coach, I'll beat that too. If I lose, I just wasn't smart enough.

That being said. Everyone's throwing a lot of scenarios around, however it hasn't been tested. As sweet and amazing as Amsah's scenarios sound. They aren't true, they are 'what if's'. Note, that Amsah said that he might, have lost to Jman, or that he might, have beaten Hbox, can we EVER in the our lifetime prove that Amsah would've respectively lost or won those matches? No. Because they have already happened, bringing them up wouldn't change anything.

It needs to be tested, that if a person is to be getting coached (in brawl and melee respectively), will the skill gap that was originally there, be still there, and will the better player win. What's the problem with that?

1. That requires someone being coached, and someone not being coached in a tournament setting. Obviously, the person not being coached won't want that 'unfair advantage', so they will disagree.
2. That requires the person not being coached to play a distinct style, that the coach, will point out on point.
3. It requires a tournament set played without a coach, and a set played with a coach, to see if the skill gap is really changing between each set.
4. all the other stuff that's already been mentioned.

So, coaching will more than likely never be in a tested environment with the perfect settings. So you can't say coaching is bad for brawl or melee unless it's actually tested. You can only really say it seems bad, and it seems unfair.

And Amsah, I don't get how I missed your post, maybe the first time, yes. But you then said the point was that if you had gotten advice you might have won. But what If you didn't? Like I said before, that's the problem. We don't actually know if you would've won because of it. IF we did, we can base an argument about coaching actually being unfair, but we don't.

And at Jessup/ DA K.I.D, seriously, you don't need to belittle me because of my opinion. I don't care if it sounds dumb to you all, I don't care how idiotic it makes me look. I'm going to keep posting until we can come to a common ground. As annoying as it might be to him if I miss the point sometimes, as enraging as it might be to everyone here to read my posts. I'm not going to stop, because I feel that straight out saying it's unfair without solid evidence means there's more to be discussed. Even if Amsah's scenarios are as unbiased and great as possible, they are still scenario with no testing involved.

 

[Nihonjin]

That being said. Everyone's throwing a lot of scenarios around, however it hasn't been tested. As sweet and amazing as Amsah's scenarios sound. They aren't true, they are 'what if's'. Note, that Amsah said that he might, have lost to Jman, or that he might, have beaten Hbox, can we EVER in the our lifetime prove that Amsah would've respectively lost or won those matches?

I've said this to you more than once, but you seem to conveniently miss it every single time. Someone else other than my opponent beating my strategy is cheating and putting me at a disadvantage, not through my own fault or my opponent's ability, but because of a third party's specific instructions. Whether or not I would have won after my strategy was countered or if the advice given turned out to be helpful or not is entirely irrelevant to my argument. Why? Because it doesn't change the fact that my opponent received help.

So, coaching will more than likely never be in a tested environment with the perfect settings. So you can't say coaching is bad for brawl or melee unless it's actually tested. You can only really say it seems bad, and it seems unfair.

I think we're all quite familiar with the concept of cheating. There's absolutely no need to test this on a game by game basis.

And Amsah, I don't get how I missed your post, maybe the first time, yes. But you then said the point was that if you had gotten advice you might have won. But what If you didn't? Like I said before, that's the problem. We don't actually know if you would've won because of it. IF we did, we can base an argument about coaching actually being unfair, but we don't.

Like I said, you've entirely missed my point.

Besides, when it comes to things like this, we're the assume the worst case scenario and whether or not we want to allow that. And if we don't, we regulate to prevent that from happening.

Your approach (doing absolutely nothing until something bad happens) is what led to the recent mining accident and the oil disaster we have on our hands right now.

 

[Strong Badam]

What I still don't understand is how coaching could ever be considered okay. Seriously, guys... I know you all aren't idiots... this isn't the Brawl community.

 

[Nihonjin]

What I still don't understand is how coaching could ever be considered okay. Seriously, guys... I know you all aren't idiots... this isn't the Brawl community.

No need to be insulting, and to be fair, some Brawl players are actually against coaching..:embarrass

 

[KAOSTAR]

Im gettin ready to start flaming lmao.

How is it hard to understand that coaching can unfairly affect the outcome of the match.

Should be no reason to allow it if its avoidable.

 

[Purple]

This should just be Amsah vs the world, because other than Amsah, I don't think anyone's really given a legitimate point.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that the worst case scenario would happen everytime.

It should then not be okay to coach before stage striking, and anything related to the game has begun either. What if I knew your strategy before the game began? Would it be equally unfair then? If i knew you have a habit of nairing OoS whenever you're in shield for a long period of time, it's still an unfair advantage right? But don't we do that all the time? Ask advice about a formidable opponent? Should the TO watch everyone throughout the entire tournament before game start for seeing if people coach?

 

[Jessup124]

Having the opinion that coaching isn't bad doesn't mean I get coached at all. I never really felt I've needed it. I've been coached against, and still won. Sure, it's mid level. But it doesn't really matter to me; I feel if I'm more skilled than them, I'll beat them. If they need a coach, I'll beat that too. If I lose, I just wasn't smart enough.

If you lost it meant that THEY BEAT YOU. It doesn't bother you? It should.

That being said. Everyone's throwing a lot of scenarios around, however it hasn't been tested... ]It needs to be tested, that if a person is to be getting coached (in brawl and melee respectively), will the skill gap that was originally there, be still there, and will the better player win. What's the problem with that?....So you can't say coaching is bad for brawl or melee unless it's actually tested. You can only really say it seems bad, and it seems unfair.

The problem once again is that on a competition level, one needs to play on their own.
It exemplifies honor, hard work, a wonderful display of strategies while under duress and an independent skill worthy of being recognized and praised.
A Foreign concept I'm sure since "IT doesn't really matter to YOU"

And at Jessup seriously, you don't need to belittle me because of my opinion. I don't care if it sounds dumb to you all, I don't care how idiotic it makes me look. I'm going to keep posting until we can come to a common ground. As annoying as it might be to him if I miss the point sometimes, as enraging as it might be to everyone here to read my posts. I'm not going to stop, because I feel that straight out saying it's unfair without solid evidence means there's more to be discussed.

Belittle?! BELITTLE?!!!
It baffled me how one can't understand how it can affect the outcome and need specific accounts but only to know that in the end, it doesn't matter to you anyway.
See you need for something to happen in order to say or think "Hey maybe that could have affected it. Meh, who cares "It doesn't really matter to me."

Credit is not given to hard work and long hours of practice and the excitement of looking forward to display this on a tournament level. To see how one's hard work has paid off against THE BEST IN THE WORLD.

It astounds me how one doesn't have the heart of a competitor or the foresight to understand that a tournament allowing coaching/help/ guidance/assistance/ advise during the match is viewed the same as having a backyard competition while friends NOT COMPETITORS gather together just to see who is better, instead in a tournament one pays to compete for this backyard event. Therefore Roxy, it is not a tournament but a get together for ****s and giggles.

"It's doesn't really matter to me ". News flash: It is not about you.

 

[Nihonjin]

This should just be Amsah vs the world, because other than Amsah, I don't think anyone's really given a legitimate point.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that the worst case scenario would happen everytime.

It should then not be okay to coach before stage striking, and anything related to the game has begun either. What if I knew your strategy before the game began? Would it be equally unfair then? If i knew you have a habit of nairing OoS whenever you're in shield for a long period of time, it's still an unfair advantage right? But don't we do that all the time? Ask advice about a formidable opponent? Should the TO watch everyone throughout the entire tournament before game start for seeing if people coach?

As I've said before, this is no different from watching and studying videos on youtube (or whatever kind of research on your opponent). It is not comparable to getting constantly updated about what's happening in the set you're currently playing.

Also,

Worst case scenario =/= Impossible scenario

 

[Purple]

If you lost it meant that THEY BEAT YOU. It doesn't bother you? It should.

Why would it bother me if they beat me? First off it doesn't matter how I feel, I just think I will get better from whatever experience I play.

The problem once again is that on a competition level, one needs to play on their own.
It exemplifies honor, hard work, a wonderful display of strategies while under duress and an independent skill worthy of being recognized and praised.
A Foreign concept I'm sure since "IT doesn't really matter to YOU"

On a competition level, you would think that's what matters, the feeling of out smarting your opponent and what not. But what matters is the desire to win; hell what matters is to win. Why do you think people camp furiously if they have to? Why do you think people drop the character they enjoy, and instead play the character they know is the best? Because that's what competition is in the end, winning. Honestly this has nothing to do with coaching at all though, and it all comes to a matter of opinion.

Belittle?! BELITTLE?!!!
It baffled me how one can't understand how it can affect the outcome and need specific accounts but only to know that in the end, it doesn't matter to you anyway.

:|. I understand how they can affect the game negatively in his scenarios. But I'm just talking from another point of view :/

See you need for something to happen in order to say or think "Hey maybe that could have affected it. Meh, who cares "It doesn't really matter to me."

People john about everything, bull**** chaingrabs to death, bull**** hitboxes, bull**** characters, bull**** counterpicks, doesn't mean any of it needs to get banned, just means you have to get better by whatever means possible, even when odds are against you.

Credit is not given to hard work and long hours of practice and the excitement of looking forward to display this on a tournament level. To see how one's hard work has paid off against THE BEST IN THE WORLD.

It astounds me how one doesn't have the heart of a competitor or the foresight to understand that a tournament allowing coaching/help/ guidance/assistance/ advise during the match is viewed the same as having a backyard competition while friends NOT COMPETITORS gather together just to see who is better, instead in a tournament one pays to compete for this backyard event.

I don't coach, I don't get coached. I might have a friend beside me telling me to stay calm, but that's about it IF that. If I lose I'll get better, If I win I face a bigger challenge. What don't you get about separating your POV from your way of play?

Therefore Roxy, it is not a tournament but a get together for ****s and giggles.

Why wouldn't it be a tournament? Because the odds are against people in certain areas. lol. That's how every tournament is for smash.

"It's doesn't really matter to me ". News flash: It is not about you.

[/QUOTE]
The comment itself wasn't even something that should've mattered. It showed you my feeling about coaching from personal experience. I don't mind it.

@amsah - So, if someone was to be telling me things in between matches. It's just as if I watched the match on youtube right? Would it be wrong for me to record a match as I'm playing it. Pause the set momentarily to watch the match on a camcorder, then continue?

I mean, boxing is a one on one sport, however there's a coach there. Is that cheating? I mean, the boxer is the one who gets the credit, the one who worked hard and trained themself, and the coach just watches the match and tells the boxer what he's doing wrong, and the opponents habits. Is that bad?

 

[Nihonjin]

@amsah - So, if someone was to be telling me things in between matches. It's just as if someone was watching my match and telling me about it right?

You can't watch matches while you're playing a set. Similar to how you cannot study during tests.

I mean, boxing is a one on one sport, however there's a coach there. Is that cheating? I mean, the boxer is the one who gets the credit, the one who worked hard and trained themself, and the coach just watches the match and tells the boxer what he's doing wrong, and the opponents habits. Is that bad?

To me, yes. Because like in Smash, Tennis, Chess, etc. "coaching negates, to any extent whatsoever, a superior ability to out-think an opponent".

Also, unless you can provide the reason coaching is allowed in boxing, there's no point bringing it up.

 

[Purple]

You can't watch matches while you're playing a set. Similar to how you cannot study during tests.

To me, yes. Because like in Smash, Tennis, Chess, etc. "coaching negates, to any extent whatsoever, a superior ability to out-think an opponent".

Also, unless you can provide the reason coaching is allowed in boxing, there's no point bringing it up.

I can't really find the reason why it's allowed. However I would feel it would be along these lines. The sport of boxing is very tiring and very fast paced, and many factors can get a person out of their right mind. There is a rule however that

A minute is typically spent between each round with the fighters in their assigned corners receiving advice and attention from their coach and staff.

And that's in, which each round or set starts, the coaches and staff cannot give advice.

 

[Jessup124]

Why would it bother me if they beat me? First off it doesn't matter how I feel, I just think I will get better from whatever experience I play.[

I see you really don't get it. Your standard are just different. And to quote you from before "If I lose, I just wasn't smart enough." I see this is why you don't get how it is viewed as they beat you.

On a competition level, you would think that's what matters, the feeling of out smarting your opponent and what not. But what matters is the desire to win; hell what matters is to win. Why do you think people camp furiously if they have to? Why do you think people drop the character they enjoy, and instead play the character they know is the best? Because that's what competition is in the end, winning. Honestly this has nothing to do with coaching at all though, and it all comes to a matter of opinion.

---------------o_O

Then you shouldn't have any objections in banning coaching throughout the match from the time it starts until it ends. Because you see "The feeling of outsmarting your opponent" is not valid if one gets assistance. And honestly if the coach advises a player during the match then the player is not "outsmarting their opponent" now are they?

:|. I understand how they can affect the game negatively in his scenarios. But I'm just talking from another point of view :/

Noted. "It doesn't really matter to me". Yes I understand. You just want to talk about the issue.

People john about everything, bull**** chaingrabs to death, bull**** hitboxes, bull**** characters, bull**** counterpicks, doesn't mean any of it needs to get banned, just means you have to get better by whatever means possible, even when odds are against you.

And there it is. I think you are deviating from the point.
The coach should not participate during a match. Period. One has to display their ability independently. That's it.

I don't coach, I don't get coached. I might have a friend beside me telling me to stay calm, but that's about it IF that. If I lose I'll get better, If I win I face a bigger challenge. What don't you get about separating your POV from your way of play?

I never accused you of getting coached. What I asked was why you opposed to playing a match on your own. A question that you haven't answered.
So I will ask again. Are you willing to compete in a tournament match BY YOURSELF. Just you and the player yes or no?

 

[Nihonjin]

I can't really find the reason why it's allowed.

Then you cannot use boxing as an argument in favor of coaching.