Coaching

[Purple]

Well **** let a ***** find it xD

 

[KAOSTAR]

In boxing, both players have a coach that I believe is determined when they sign the contract. So b4 the tournament as an equivalent.

There is no way melee can have set coaches because that takes longer from a TOS perspective, so the fair things is to have no coaches. The coach will most likely be a smasher, and if he is good he will have matches of his own. There is no reason to wait for 4 ppl in a 1v1 match.

The only way its fair is if both players have a coach thats determined when they entered, of their choosing, of course the coach has to agree.

 

[Purple]

In boxing, both players have a coach that I believe is determined when they sign the contract. So b4 the tournament as an equivalent.

There is no way melee can have set coaches because that takes longer from a TOS perspective, so the fair things is to have no coaches. The coach will most likely be a smasher, and if he is good he will have matches of his own. There is no reason to wait for 4 ppl in a 1v1 match.

The only way its fair is if both players have a coach thats determined when they entered, of their choosing, of course the coach has to agree.

And you're saying that's not possible? IT's possible to have coaches signed up before the tournament starts.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Its possible. That would be the only situation when coaching is allowed in a competitive situation.

In football, you know who the coach of the other team is because you not only account for the players, you account for the coaches strategies.

Its more trouble than its worth to have smash coaches. You will then have 2-4 ppl in 1v1 competition and maybe 4-8 in 2v2.

It just takes alot longer because nobody is gonna want a non smasher coach. The players with the most knowledge are generally better, and will still be playing matches. Or at the beginning of the tournament it takes alot longer because everyone is playing games and coaches are busy with their own matches.

Most venues have a closing time and we barely make it as it is during big tournaments. Why add more stress to that for something stupid like coaches.

 

[Nihonjin]

And you're saying that's not possible? IT's possible to have coaches signed up before the tournament starts.

This sounds like a great idea, until you have to fight your coach. I've explained this already.

 

[Purple]

Its possible. That would be the only situation when coaching is allowed in a competitive situation.

In football, you know who the coach of the other team is because you not only account for the players, you account for the coaches strategies.

Its more trouble than its worth to have smash coaches. You will then have 2-4 ppl in 1v1 competition and maybe 4-8 in 2v2.

It just takes alot longer because nobody is gonna want a non smasher coach. The players with the most knowledge are generally better, and will still be playing matches. Or at the beginning of the tournament it takes alot longer because everyone is playing games and coaches are busy with their own matches.

Most venues have a closing time and we barely make it as it is during big tournaments. Why add more stress to that for something stupid like coaches.

Coaching is allowed in boxing because everyone can have a coach. Coaches train their players and make sure they have correct habits and are properly trained for events. Coaches mentally take care of the player while the player itself trains themselves to be physically available for the part. The only way coaching could be in turn, okay for smash is if everyone was allowed the opportunity to have a coach (i.e. if there was a rule for coaching. You are still skilled even with a coach, you are technically sound and you know your character well. Coaching is just a matter of helping make the right decisions in between matches. The best scenario would be you come into a match and lose, you get coached, you win the second match, they get coached while you get coached, and the last match would be "even". Coaching would only be allowed at the end of a match and could only last for a minute tops. You are allowed to coach and box(smash) consecutively, just as you are allowed to smash by yourself, however it isn't recommended in the boxing scene.

As far as I know, there's only one coach a a boxer, maybe an assistant if the coach so chooses. However that's not hard to set up, considering they can sign up this way at the TO.

When you have to fight your coach, you just play. I would assume you know your coach well enough to not need a coach when you play against your coach anyways.

 

[Nihonjin]

When you have to fight your coach, you just play. I would assume you know your coach well enough to not need a coach when you play against your coach anyways.

And if your coach has a coach of his own, then you're fighting two people.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Yea lol, good lookin out. I didnt think about that.

B4 you ask Roxy-yes its unfair to then choose a new random coach. If ppl have coaches it should be chosen ahead of time. Coaches have diff matchup knowledge and experience so If Amsah was my coach and I had to play him, I would find the best sheik coach. There wouldnt be enough time to choose a good coach, and if Im allowed a coach I should be able to have a good coach at all times, not have to find a ****ty one on the fly.

If im use to having MY COACH, I should NEVER have to play without him. Asking way to much for coaches assistant.

 

[Purple]

Yea lol, good lookin out. I didnt think about that.

B4 you ask Roxy-yes its unfair to then choose a new random coach. If ppl have coaches it should be chosen ahead of time. Coaches have diff matchup knowledge and experience so If Amsah was my coach and I had to play him, I would find the best sheik coach. There wouldnt be enough time to choose a good coach, and if Im allowed a coach I should be able to have a good coach at all times, not have to find a ****ty one on the fly.

Then every player would then need an assistant coach in speculation that you have to play your coach.

Right..?

 

[Nihonjin]

@KAOS
That's not even the issue, you registered with a certain person so you should play with them.
If your team partner for whatever reason isn't available to you, you get DQ'd. You're not allowed to pick a new one.

@Roxy

Can you really still call that singles..?

That's as much a separate event as teams, low tier & crews.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Who would also be a smasher. What if you have to play your assistant coach?

In that situation, what if you are use to playing with both coaches. You should NEVER have to play without both of them.

@amsah yea I feel it.

 

[Nihonjin]

Who would also be a smasher. What if you have to play your assistant coach?

In that situation, what if you are use to playing with both coaches. You should NEVER have to play without both of them.

What if your assistant-coach is your coach's coach..? :embarrass

 

[KAOSTAR]

Lol ask ROxy.

Its a bad situation. Im sure the easy fix is that you can only coach 1 player as an assistance or head coach.


but dam, This is really really easy to understand. Its not fair to have random ppl be coaches, unless they are pre picked and assigned b4hand.

if they are pre picked and assigned it is impractical and takes longer. The tourney as a whole will run more slowly.

Having coaches in an individual thing like smash is dumb. Practice b4 you come to the ****ing tourney. Study for the got dam test.

plz tell me you get this roxy.

 

[Purple]

It never ends! :L The coach would have to be someone not entering the event.

lol @ my annoying perserverence

 

[Nihonjin]

^Then it needs to be a separate event from singles & teams.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Ok but who is gonna go to a touney and sign up as a coach. They still usually have to pay venue fee which is the largest amount on avg.

and if they dont smash, they are prob terrible coaches. Its not like football where ppl watch on tv and ****.

 

[Purple]

Well, if you help them train, you could just go to help them win. :|. It's a possibility. That rule actually could make coaching legal, but extremely unlikely.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Yes its possible. But unlikely.

and unless there are rules then its unfair.

end thread/

 

[Purple]

Sounds about right. But even if it's unlikely, it could happen.

Anyways, Amsah how do you feel about it?

 

[KAOSTAR]

he has been saying the same thing for like 3 days. lol

Everyone knows how he feels.

For the record-I would prefer not to have coaches, even if its done fairly

It cant happen.

 

[Nihonjin]

Sounds about right. But even if it's unlikely, it could happen.

Anyways, Amsah how do you feel about it?

Like I said, an event like that would have to be completely separate from singles & teams or you probably would not be able to attract enough participants to actually call it a tournament.

And even as a side event, it'd probably be less popular than low tier tournaments..:embarrass

 

[Jem.]

If Smash had more money, it'd be a lot easier to do the coaching. at MLG you have a coach sign up, and they get publicity/part of the sponsorship deals, and i think most the top teams coaches ask for 10% of the winnings (and are usually good friends with the teams)

the reason no coach would ever sign up specifically as a coach for smash is because the low amount of money being offered.

 

[X1-12]

I have been out for the past 12 hours so missed about 3 pages of posts, but while reading through, a few things caught my eye, firstly Roxy saying in one post, "No need to belittle me" to jessup, and then in your next post saying "no-one other than Amsah has purposeful posts seems a little too silly for my liking and lost me some respect for you.

Allthough I would actually like to see a side-event where coaching was allowed and fully set-up, it seems unlikely that this will happen. as people would see it as the main tourney, just more of a joke.

 

[Purple]

X1, there's a difference between being a worthless person, or having posts that aren't making points. Amsah's the practical spokesperson of pro-ban.

If you noticed, Jeesup's post didn't really revolve much around pro-ban, as it picking at my words.

And respect? I'm anti-ban, I thought you guys would've been extremely disrespectful to me by now anyways :embarrass

 

[MT_]

For the record, I'm sure the main reason why no one else is posting anti-coaching arguments here is because Amsah has already covered all bases...

But another thing is that I also can't understand why some people don't recognize that having a coach makes the situation different than 1v1. If you have a coach guiding you through a match (which DIRECTLY ALTERS YOUR ACTIONS IN THE MATCH), then obviously your character is not being influenced by only the player, which changes the course of the match under the influence of another individual.

Now I see the argument that if we allow everyone to have a coach then it should be fair. Incorrect. AFAIK, the purpose of a singles match is to determine who can win against their opponent, right? If you agree with this, then you can't possibly agree with coaching being fair. Having a coach means that your gameplay is affected by three things: your technical skill, your decisions, and your coach's influence. In a match where it's supposed to be one versus one, your gameplay should only be affected by your technical skill and your decisions. Otherwise the match isn't determining what it's supposed to: to see who can win against their opponent.

Again, I'm not taking a side on whether we should allow coaching or not. I think a main point that anti-coaching can't really deal with is that regulating a banned coaching rule is going to be very difficult and unlikely to happen. But theoretically it stands that coaching is unfair and, if possible, should not be allowed.

 

[Purple]

ignore this.

 

[Jessup124]

If you noticed, Jeesup's post didn't really revolve much around pro-ban, as it picking at my words.

Dude, are you okay? All of my posts were why coaching should be banned. When I addressed you, I was curious to know why you are against banning. I was explaining to you all the reasons why any REAL COMPETITORS would not mine having a ban on coaching during a match once it starts.

You claimed that I was belittling you when I wasn't .

The truth is I do care about this issue more than you can appreciate. I care that my brothers , myself and friends practice to get better . It bother's me that someone can go to a competitive environment and go up against the world's best only to find out they can receive assistance to nurse and comfort whatever skills they are lacking while under pressure, and it acceptable during an one on one tournament.

I care that it is cheating. I care the it is guise under "well it's fine if they have a coach, I'll just try harder or maybe use a coach myself" . And for the record this is not a reflection of you but people who make excuses for why that cannot play on their own. Because the bottom line is one doesn't possess the independent skills to perform without assistance.

I believe in hard work and practice and know full well that not all can be the world's best . And so to let you know , I mean really know that when it is all said and done, I will know who is the best and that will be the player who has the heart of a champion, skills and didn't seek out external support during his match.

 

[jugfingers]

Amsah are you actually worried about someone coaching against you?

 

[john!]

Dude, are you okay? All of my posts were why coaching should be banned. When I addressed you, I was curious to know why you are against banning. I was explaining to you all the reasons why any REAL COMPETITORS would not mine having a ban on coaching during a match once it starts.

...

I believe in hard work and practice and know full well that not all can be the world's best . And so to let you know , I mean really know that when it is all said and done, I will know who is the best and that will be the player who has the heart of a champion, skills and didn't seek out external support during his match.

"real competitors"? "heart of a champion"? "skills"?

i may have missed some but you get the point. the underlined are all fantastic players who can compete at or near the top level. your argument holds no weight and you are trying to be an elitist when the elite mostly don't agree with you.

i'll post this for the THIRD time. if the vocal minority of anti-coaching supporters in here still choose to ignore it, then i'll be convinced there's no substance behind their argument, and they're just ganging up on roxy.

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).

 

[da K.I.D.]

I already explained that circumventing the coaching rules doesnt and hasnt happened.

You bring up a hypothetical example where people could circumvent this rule and thus unfairly affect the outcome.

I gave you an actual tournament that i personally ran, where I actually had a rule against coaching, and actually threatened DQs and ejections. Everything at the thing that I brought up that actually happened turned out fine.

personal experience >>> hypothetical examples

and @ roxy
annoying perserverance is not the same as hard headed stupidity, which is a more accurate description of what youre doing here.

 

[john!]

I already explained that circumventing the coaching rules doesnt and hasnt happened.

You bring up a hypothetical example where people could circumvent this rule and thus unfairly affect the outcome.

I gave you an actual tournament that i personally ran, where I actually had a rule against coaching, and actually threatened DQs and ejections. Everything at the thing that I brought up that actually happened turned out fine.

personal experience >>> hypothetical examples

and @ roxy
annoying perserverance is not the same as hard headed stupidity, which is a more accurate description of what youre doing here.

That's a good example and I'm glad you took care of the coaching problem in your region. But this poll concerns a universal ban on coaching, something that would make a coaching ban standard at every tournament, even the highest level ones.

At your tourney, you knew the people that were likely to coach, and you specifically made the rule and watched them closely to make sure nothing bad happened. At a international level tournament like Pound or Apex, this won't happen. Everyone in the audience will have to be scrutinized at all times to make sure they aren't communicating with the player in any way whatsoever. This is next to impossible to prevent, and doing so would require both players to be in a separate room or something. I have a feeling that the tournaments wouldn't be as fun if this happened, and attendance would probably drop.

Furthermore, at these large tournaments, tons of money is on the line, and the top players are going to find a way to get any edge that they can. You think they're going to honor a rule that's almost impossible to enforce, that makes it harder to win tons of money, and that the majority of them disagree with anyway? The ones that do will essentially be punished for following the rules. So although a coaching ban may work occasionally on a local basis at the discretion of that TO, making it a universal standard rule for all tournaments is a whole different ballgame.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Actions of players outside of the game cannot be banned within game rules.

Its up to the TO.

 

[Jessup124]

"real competitors"? "heart of a champion"? "skills"?

Allow me to enlighten you John, I also said the ONE who doesn't get the external help will be the champion. While I am at it, Nihonjin stated that he voted that option by accident.
However what you pointed out still does not change that fact one is competing with a handicap.
I think it is ridiculous that it was ever tolerated during a tournament match. It is an allowance for cheating.
Word it anyway you like, color it pretty , the fact is one is receiving help with his game during the match.

i may have missed some but you get the point. the underlined are all fantastic players who can compete at or near the top level. your argument holds no weight and you are trying to be an elitist when the elite mostly don't agree with you.

Then the "Elite" needs to up their game by playing BY THEMSELVES. Because the "elite' are cheating IF they get the assistance during a match.

i'll post this for the THIRD time. if the vocal minority of anti-coaching supporters in here still choose to ignore it, then i'll be convinced there's no substance behind their argument, and they're just ganging up on roxy.

I am not ganging up on Roxy. I only addressed him because he mentioned me and stated that I did when I only asked him a question.
Quite frankly, I think all the players need to play a ONE on ONE match by themselves.

At a international level tournament like Pound or Apex, this won't happen. Everyone in the audience will have to be scrutinized at all times to make sure they aren't communicating with the player in any way whatsoever. This is next to impossible to prevent, and doing so would require both players to be in a separate room or something. I have a feeling that the tournaments wouldn't be as fun if this happened, and attendance would probably drop.

Furthermore, at these large tournaments, tons of money is on the line, and the top players are going to find a way to get any edge that they can. You think they're going to honor a rule that's almost impossible to enforce, that makes it harder to win tons of money, and that the majority of them disagree with anyway? The ones that do will essentially be punished for following the rules. So although a coaching ban may work occasionally on a local basis at the discretion of that TO, making it a universal standard rule for all tournaments is a whole different ballgame

What if attendance doesn't drop. We won't know anything until it happens. It can be done however we won't know unless it changes.
People can conform and adapt to changes, granted children do it more easily than older ones and adults. However to the bold, that it the real reason why it should be banned because it is an edge and that edge is cheating. It is the player's inability to truly win the match on his own.

 

[X1-12]

Furthermore, at these large tournaments, tons of money is on the line, and the top players are going to find a way to get any edge that they can. You think they're going to honor a rule that's almost impossible to enforce, that makes it harder to win tons of money, and that the majority of them disagree with anyway? The ones that do will essentially be punished for following the rules. So although a coaching ban may work occasionally on a local basis at the discretion of that TO, making it a universal standard rule for all tournaments is a whole different ballgame.

Why would top players risk getting disqualified? Once again you are calling the rule impossible to enforce yet in the kind of matches you are talking about, where money will be involved, the TO will almost certainly be there as it will be at the very top end of the bracket. Moreover the coach/coached may well argue that they weren't being coached but it doesn't matter, the TO doesn't have to prove in a court of law that they were coaching if the TO sees someone cheat, that's enough, TO's word is law.


PS I don't think that the top pros will like your suggestion that they would all cheat in order to win money

 

[Purple]

Many are willing to change their gameplay entirely in order to win a game.

I remember at Tipped Off 5 Cyrain literally yelled to Tope for him DURING the match when it began to get out of his favor.

By the way, the argument isn't really coaching during a match anymore. I guess no one understands that, it's more like in between matches or if not that, at the beginning of the set for a few minutes. (but honestly, it would make more sense to be done for a minute between counterpick moments.)

 

[X1-12]

By the way, the argument isn't really coaching during a match anymore

Perhaps it is in your mind, but no-one has explicitly said they were talking about between match coaching in the last 2 pages, and it seems that john is arguing for mind-match coaching

Many are willing to change their gameplay entirely in order to win a game.

I remember at Tipped Off 5 Cyrain literally yelled to Tope for him DURING the match when it began to get out of his favor.

it's more like in between matches or if not that, at the beginning of the set for a few minutes. (but honestly, it would make more sense to be done for a minute between counterpick moments.)

firstly changing gameplay =/= cheating you don't see top players telling their mates to hit their opponent mid match in order for them to win. and I'm sure that CYrain wouldn't have done that had coaching been banned at that tourney

Secondly TOs allowing time at the beginning of the set seems also unnecessary, what can you be told in that one minute that you couldn't be told before the tourney even starts, or before your match, in your own time as there's always time between sets at a tourney.

Thirdly is a players ability to chose the right counter-pick part of his own skill? (please just answer yes or no)

 

[Purple]

Why would it be unnecessary? It puts coaching in it's selected time.

A stage is a stage; so no. Picking a counterpick isn't a showcase of skill, just like choosing a character doesn't make you technical with that character, it's being able to play on that stage efficiently.

 

[X1-12]

Why would it be unnecessary? It puts coaching in it's selected time.

what does it gain? say again: "what can you be told in that one minute that you couldn't be told before the tourney even starts, or before your match"?

A stage is a stage; so no. Picking a counterpick isn't a showcase of skill, just like choosing a character doesn't make you technical with that character, it's being able to play on that stage efficiently.

but surely picking the correct counter-pick, based on your own play style, your interpretation of your opponents play style, your character, their character? say for example in melee you were playing a falcon who likes to run around, and you were marth, its your own skill to realise that Yoshi's story would be a good counter-pick as it is small, cramps their play style and gives your characters advantages (platforms)


Note: sorry if its hard to understand this example as you don't play melee, but I don't own brawl or 64 and can't give a good exmaple for that

 

[Purple]

It's not always tactical information that's said for a minute. It can be basic things like "space your fairs" or "ignore the crowd" that needs to be reasserted.

If you're a textbook falcon, you'll have "textbook" counter picks persay. Not many counterpicks go out of the ordinary

 

[Nihonjin]

*snip*

"If we ban cheating, some people will cheat, putting everyone who plays by the rules at a disadvantage, thus we should allow cheating."


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that the bottom line of your argument John..?

It's not always tactical information that's said for a minute. It can be basic things like "space your fairs" or "ignore the crowd" that needs to be reasserted.

Irrelevant.

If you're a textbook falcon, you'll have "textbook" counter picks persay. Not many counterpicks go out of the ordinary

Not really. I play Sheik and I don't have a favorite stage. My counterpicks are based solely on my opponent's playing style and putting them at a disadvantage. So if my coach notices something in their playing style that I didn't, their information will definitely influence my CPs.

But I'm not sure why I'm answering, because this is too, entirely irrelevant.