I have control of this thread, and my decision is I'm not going to factor in any opinion's that are not backed up by arguement and evidence. If you claim Marth has a 90-10 advantage but don't give arguementative, statistical, or videographical evidence, I cannot use that substantiation in the main post when we have to decide the matchup. I'm sure you all agree that is the best way to go about it. We have to arrive at a conclusion that is accurate as possible, and it's hard to judge when reasons aren't given, no matter the players skill level or their credibility, without reasons there's nothing to go by. Right now I am leaning to 60-40 since the argumentative reasoning and the overall consensus seems to average/be right about there.
I would love to hear reasons or things that you people feel give Marth a wild 90-10 advantage. Which by the way I don't think Brawl even allows anything over a 75-25 matchup. The physics allow for too much hit trading. If the Peach and Marth both are really good at powershielding/parrying, for example, I don't see Marth being able to **** her at a 90-10 advantage ever. That's just impossible. Sure, Marth can get more hits in if he's really good, but if they are both good and can powershield each others attacks, there's no way there can be **** to such ridiculous magnitudes.
Need I remind you all the purpose of this thread is to get Peach players BETTER. Simply stating that Marth has an advantage, and using results and "I beat this guy" or "this guy beat me " does nothing to help advance her metagame. The reason I even made the matchup ratio even a point of discussion is because it leads into strategies. For example, you could say "Marth has an advantage because he does this move" And then using that evidence you explain why he has an advantage. The ONLY reason we even care about this is so someone else can bring up counter strategies to what gives him an advantage, thereby giving people more ideas and ways to make their Peach better, and we aren't doing that by just argueing over who has the advantage without giving good reasons.
I feel like I did that. I made a post explaining why I thought the matchup was even. And it definitely isn't fanboyism over my character, I feel like Snake has a 70-30 advantage on Peach, despite thinking she's even with Marth and Meta, and I feel a 60-40 disadvantage to game and watch, just to put it into context. Then I read Dark Pch's post on why it was 60-40 and he gave even better reasons, so it was convincing, as well as a few others who put Marth at a slight advantage and gave their reasons. I still haven't seen that kind of things for the camp saying Marth is at a 70+ advantage.
I find it unbelievable that Hova would be able to **** most marths he play besides like the top 2 marths in the east coast and still claim marth has a 75-25 advantage. That makes no sense. To me a 75-25 advantage means you have to be 3 times as good as the other player to win, and if you claim you can **** most marths, i highly doubt you are three times better than all these marths. Maybe twice as good, maybe a good deal good, but I find it inconsistent to **** so many Marths, hova, and still feel Marth has an overwhelming advantage. Peach IC's in Melee is a 75-25 , 80-20 matchup. IC Climbers can never say they **** every peach they play. They always say they lose to every peach, and people can just pick Peach and downsmash a bunch and beat an IC at the same skill level. The IC player has to play like three times as good to beat the peach. That's something like an 80-20 matchup. I do not see the Marth matchup being the same unless someone can explain why or explain why our strategies for beating Marth don't hold weight.
