The "Coaching" Debate.

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

what the ****? read my post before spewing bile at me, moron.

yeah I did read it and you made no sense when you essentially say that

it's not fair when your opponents have better TEAMMATES in TEAMS.

as opposed to it not being fair when your opponent has a better TEAMMATE in SINGLES.

derpderp.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Beat!]

So has this thread come to a conclusion yet?

I want to know if I should waste my time learning match ups, handling pressure and how to read my opponents, or if I should just get a knowledgeable friend with me at tournaments.

Lol, summing it up nicely.

 

[FoxLisk]

yeah I did read it and you made no sense when you essentially say that

it's not fair when your opponents have better TEAMMATES in TEAMS.

as opposed to it not being fair when your opponent has a better TEAMMATE in SINGLES.

derpderp.

that's not even close to what i said.

 

[Smasher89]

Earlier, when there was more stages on, I had no problem at all to pick a "wierd stage\choice" where even a bunch of people had no clue at all and just got confused by the choice. This has resulted in me winning the majority of times, so being easy to predict is something you just have to step up not being to(to make those clever stage\character choices for example.

But in the enviroment now without being able to pick like 2 stages, there's no way of doing that kind of counterpicks.
Which has taken away skill earlier needed in the system with counterpicks. So I understand why people is desperate to be able to stay with their old tactic, since theres little room for creativity and more for effiency.



If something should be tested(can be a bit unrealistic) is having 2 close to equally crews of any size, where one crew don't help each other at all during matches(representing a ban), where the other side gets it encouraged. And face each other before the test and after. I bet the ones without the ban (even if it's tennissilent during the crewmatch) that the ones without it will develop faster and win that match. It's just like sirlins scrubs argument.

 

[Nihonjin]

*delete this post*

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Why do I think coaching is not inherently unfair? Because many of the arguments against it can be applied to teams. If the argument, 'but if my opponent is friends with mango and mango coaches him, i'm ****ed' holds, then the argument, 'but if my opponent is friends with mango and they team together, me and my buddy are ****ed in doubles' holds.
Er, that's not why I think coaching is not inherently unfair, but I think it's the easiest way to get the idea across.

comparing coaching in singles to teaming in doubles?

pretty much what you said

 

[Brookman]

So has this thread come to a conclusion yet?

I want to know if I should waste my time learning match ups, handling pressure and how to read my opponents, or if I should just get a knowledgeable friend with me at tournaments.

I'm pretty sure that, either way, you'll be going 0-2 rage quits for the duration of your career here.

 

[Deleted member]

I feel like coaching should be allowed between matches, but not midmatch. It's 1 vs 1, not me vs you and your posse.

i agree with this. if both players have access to it though, it's still a fair playing field? i'd be fine with it either way honestly.

edit: every time brookmang posts...it's like someone understands me.

<3 brookman

 

[FoxLisk]

Slickback:

Okay, let me rephrase this. I already explained it correctly the first time but apparently you don't get it, so I'll try again:

Coaching is not inherently unfair. Having an event where coaching is encouraged would be a fair event, because everyone would be playing by the same rules. For this reason, the argument that coaching is unfair because some players have access to better coaches fails, and the analogy to teams works.

One can't say teams is unfair simply because one player has access to a better teammate than another. But people enter teams because they know what they are getting into, and they are aware that they are playing a two-player team, and that even a player on their level may have an extremely strong teammate due to friendship or regions or whatever.

This is totally fair because the idea is that you enter as a team.

Similarly, coaching in an abstract is totally fair as long as it is in an environment where everyone is aware that they should bring a coach. There will still be people who have friends who are better coaches than others, and those people will be at an accepted and fair advantage, because in this situation, you are entering as a player-coach team (entering the set, at least; depending on how the tournament is organized, you could theoretically have different coaches for each set. again, this is fair assuming everyone is on the same page).

Because these situations are relatively parallel, the argument "coaching isn't fair because some people are friends with better coaches" fails for the same reason that "teams isn't fair because some people have access to better friends" fails; thereby, either coaching is fair or teams aren't in their respective environments.

And to address the idea that I stated something that was not my opinion: I did no such thing. i stand by the idea that coaching is totally fair on its own, but should be banned from singles tournaments. I think if a TO wants to have a coaching-encouraged tournament, that tournament would be completely fair and would accurately represent the abilities of its player-coach entrant pairs (or, again, given more fluid coaching rules, players' ability to be coached by a variety of people and said coaches' group skill); the victor would be the player who, along with his coach, prevailed against other coached players.

However, the current tournament environment is such that many or most entrants into a given tournament are not in favour of coaching and have no intent to be coached. They are entering into a tournament where they expect to also play against an uncoached opponent. Then it isn't fair to them if some of their opponents are being coached, because they are trying to play one on one.

If people - as forward intends to - hosted "Coaching Encouraged" tournaments, then people would show up knowing what they were in for. No one would enter doubles without a teammate (except Chu at his biweeklies, I guesss) and expect to win because that's a 2 on 2 environment. Similarly, if you show up for a coaching tournament without anyone to coach you, you would be well aware that you are putting yourself at a significant disadvantage, and do so at your own risk.

tl;dr: coaching isn't wrong, but any given tournament should be explicitly either coaching allowed or coaching disallowed so people are entering what they think they are. either format is fine, but different, and the results may well be different given the same pool of entrants into each.

 

[Beat!]

Slickback:


This is totally fair because the idea is that you enter as a team.

Where as you don't enter singles as a team, so it's not the same thing.

And as some people have already stated, it's already a lot harder to achieve something if you don't have access to an at least medium-sized community (which is the case for a lot of people). Should it be even harder for said people to perform good in tournaments, because of their opponents not only having better training partners (which not much can be done about), but also having better coaches? A lot of new players will just end up discouraged and quit playing.

 

[Brookman]

If a player gets discouraged and quits playing then they were destined to get discouraged and quit playing in any case.

Having a coach isn't an instant win. Even if Mango is coaching me against HBox I'm not going to be playing with the precision that Mango would have, or the sharp intuition that seperates a player on either of their levels from myself. Mango can Tell me exactly what Hbox is gonna be doing but I still have to have the ability to out play him in these situations.

Whether or not coaching is encouraged at an event has no bearing on whether or not coaching is fair. At this current moment in time, coaching is a non-issue, coaching has and will remain a facotor in tournaments whether or not coaching is stamped on the tournament header.

The fact that coaching isn't stamped on the tournament header doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't go through the tournament section looking for Pound 3: an edge hogging tournament. We know edge hogging exists and this is a part of the community. Coaching is the most simple thing and If you've been tou any tournament, EVER you know that even the players in the crowd cheering for X player will offer their own coaching advice. Fore example, People who support Dr. PP often shout out for hin to remember his laser gun.

Certainly not the best bit of coaching but It is a mental cue to the player.


As for your statement that many or most players are out of favor with coaching, I disagree, and believe that the majority of entrants would have no opinion on the matter and, if asked, would shrug and say 'sure, coach away!!' at least until they were in a situation where their opponent was coached to victory against them ;]]]]






On a serious note: I'm actually in favor with Amsah and believe that no one should be privately communicating with a player in the course of a game. In between games, maybe, but certainly not during.

 

[FoxLisk]

where as you don't enter singles as a team, so it's not the same thing.

thats what i ****ing said aghhh people pay attention to my words

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Derp your analogy might make sense if people entered singles as player + coach.

but we don't

so you're ********.

agree with the 2nd half of your post though

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

this thread is sooooooo ugly.

 

[forward]

I don't think the problem with coaching is that different people won't have access to good enough coaches, but just coaching in general reduces the amount of skill that people need to play well.

Hey puu, this is an argument I tried to use to counter that argument but, for whatever reason, people didn't get what I was saying. So I'll try again and tell me what you think.

Anit-coaching argument is this:
Coaching reduces skill needed to play well.
The skills are adaption, prediction, tactics, etc.

My counter argument was this:
Crowds cheering a player on reduce the skill needed to play well.
The skills are confidence, will power, keeping your head in the game, etc.

Let me know if that makes sense. If it does I would like to know how people refute that.

 

[Luma]

when you are getting cheered against you can work on that before the set, staying strong and stuff (mental training)

but you cant do anything is someone is getting "better" by beeing coached during a set

 

[Merkuri]

Hey puu, this is an argument I tried to use to counter that argument but, for whatever reason, people didn't get what I was saying. So I'll try again and tell me what you think.

Anit-coaching argument is this:
Coaching reduces skill needed to play well.
The skills are adaption, prediction, tactics, etc.

My counter argument was this:
Crowds cheering a player on reduce the skill needed to play well.
The skills are confidence, will power, keeping your head in the game, etc.

Let me know if that makes sense. If it does I would like to know how people refute that.

Amsah has repeatedly made a good explanation as to how cheering and coaching are different. Why do you keep ignoring it?

 

[Jessup124]

The purpose for coaching is to enhance the player's lack of ability to think and react for himself .So coaching during a match puts that player in an advantage because he is receiving direct assistance/guidance to gain the upper hand on his opponent. The purpose of the match is designed to determine a winner.
Coaching during a 1 vs 1 match should not be allowed.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[DtJ SmithZzz]

this thread is sooooooo ugly.

this is a pretty good post imo.

 

[forward]

OK, none of you are acknowledging an important part of argument.

I'm not saying cheering makes you play worse.

I'm saying it makes your opponent play better.

That things you would do, that may normally have a heavy psychological affect on them, will be less powerful.

e.g. Wobbling. It takes a strong mind to stay in the game when you are being wobbled. If people are cheering for you, it makes it easier.

The crowd is aiding your lack of skill to keep your head in the game.

Does it make sense yet?

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[forward]

Thanks for understanding Puu most people (above posters) didn't understand it.

I'll get back to that in a few hours... I have another paper to write

Edit: yea sorry puu didn't read your post at first that at first. I'm kind of in a rush.

 

[Luma]

you can train yourself to get a boost aswell from cheers for your opponent, please start reading my posts forward

 

[-ACE-]

So, the way I see it...

Changes coaching will cause:

-skills such as matchup knowledge, pattern recognition, handling nervousness, adaptation, knowledge of/ability to remember effective tactics, etc. become less important for placing well in tournament.

-the ability to find a good coach is introduced as a new "skill" of varying importance, but this alone can potentially make all the difference in a players performance in tournaments well as have a significant effect on the overall outcome of the tournament. As wobbles mentioned previously, one's ability to get a good coach is strongly affected by a player's location, popularity, etc.

-increased potential for corruption within the smash community (i know I'll get criticized for this but I'd like to stimulate more discussion): we have already seen how people throw matches in tournament, and in pools (ex: when a very go player drops a set to a friend in pools so that they can make it to bracket, screwing over the player that should have made it). Coaches will have the ability to give advice as they see fit, be it beneficial or detrimental. Although the latter may be somewhat of a rarity (as is people intentionally throwing matches), the situation will be encountered at some point. Ex: (I'll use DrPP and l0zR since I'm friends with them both irl) say I'm playing lozr in tournament, ganon vs fox, with pp as my coach, and say pp and lozr are best friends. As a result, pp doesn't try his hardest to coach me as he'd rather see adam win (as if I'd have a chance lol, given adam is in practice... he's without a doubt one of the best foxes vs ganon out there, not kidding). So PP "sandbags" as a coach (and of course I take his advice quite seriously since he's so good), and I lose a very close set. I may never have realized that he did this, but I just wanted to give an example of the power we would be granting coaches and how it can be affected by things that have nothing to do with smash.

-overall quality of play will be enhanced by a certain varying amount

I truly believe that coaching during "seriouslies" at smashfests is a great idea, as long as players do not become dependent on their coach; Imo it will ultimately lead to an increase in players' skill (kind of like, 2 heads are better than 1). When it comes to tournament play, it's time to see what YOU know, how YOU can handle pressure (on your own), how well YOU can adapt, how good YOU are, as an individual player. Fairness should be a top concern for us imo, as I am very competitive and would like to think that every victory I get in tournament is a victory earned.

 

[FoxLisk]

Derp your analogy might make sense if people entered singles as player + coach.

but we don't

so you're ********.

agree with the 2nd half of your post though

i know people don't enter singles as player + coach. that's why it's unfair if someone has a coach. whcih is why ive now written like 1000 words explaining that... not sure why you still dont get it.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

You could say it provides "higher quality" matches, which add to the overall enjoyment.

 

[Nihonjin]

Anit-coaching argument is this:
Coaching reduces skill needed to play well.
The skills are adaption, prediction, tactics, etc.

My counter argument was this:
Crowds cheering a player on reduce the skill needed to play well.
The skills are confidence, will power, keeping your head in the game, etc.

I've already addressed this more than once.

@ forward

Amsah's reasoning, as someone repeated above, was that you can train yourself mentally to get rid of the effects of cheering. I don't think that's true though.

I did it.

Just like with coaching, the purpose of cheering isn't to distract the opponent (in an ideal world), but it definitely helps the playing being cheered for, in the same way that coaching does. The analogy is actually a good one, since both cheering and coaching help the player it's being directed at, while not necessarily hurting the play quality of the other person.

Except, your opponent gets the same benefits from the crowd as you do.

So basically, it's true that cheering does sway the game in a certain players favour in general. If our purpose was to determine 100% objectively who the best player is, then cheering should be removed.

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that what I said isn't possible. So you're wrong.

I'm glad we agree in the end though.

OK, none of you are acknowledging an important part of argument.

I'm not saying cheering makes you play worse.

I'm saying it makes your opponent play better.

That things you would do, that may normally have a heavy psychological affect on them, will be less powerful.

e.g. Wobbling. It takes a strong mind to stay in the game when you are being wobbled. If people are cheering for you, it makes it easier.

The crowd is aiding your lack of skill to keep your head in the game.

Does it make sense yet?

No because that entirely depends on the player.

 

[strawhats]

you're debating machine aren't amsah sama. Good ****.

 

[PokemonMasterIRL]

what wobbles said about " what if the other player had mango as their coach"

Mango's coaching to Joey (Lucky) mid match vs Lucien at GSG

"Give him the turbo."

"C'mon turbo."

"Yeah"

"you suck give him the turbo"

I dont think Id mind if mango coached someone.



<3 Mangoooo

 

[Vro]

I believe in coaching because ultimately, the player still plays it out. If coaching were allowed, it'd be normal for big matches to have coaches on both sides. You can say there are uneven advantages when comparing individual coaches, but that's the same with the players.

The biggest mindgames aren't the obvious ones. A coach can't tell you to do something or play a differently AND stop the opponent/coach from adapting. Purely from a spectator's stance, it'd provide for better matches, just as the NFL or any other professional sport has fat white guys sitting in booths shouting over a mic.

I can see why this bothers a lot of people. Coaching "takes" away from the mental or abstract part of the game, letting the players "just do their job" and perform the tech skill. But isn't it always up to the player to decide what the correct situation is? Isn't it their job to perform?

If you disagree with that premise, we just are on opposite sides of the fence. You can say that it should be all for one man when in the ring. But even if you do, you still have to admit coaching in between matches should be permissible.

 

[Jessup124]

Good Grief!

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

For the purposes of this response, I will invoke Inui's Rule and ASSUME that the winner of a match is the better player. Therefore the winner of the tournament is the best player. This is bull**** but bear with me here.

I believe in coaching because ultimately, the player still plays it out. If coaching were allowed, it'd be normal for big matches to have coaches on both sides. You can say there are uneven advantages when comparing individual coaches, but that's the same with the players.

The players enter the tournament as single players in order to prove themselves. The nature of competition makes it so that players who are better make it to the top. This is the nature of tournaments.

The coaches don't enter the tournament with the player. Therefore, they should have no place in influencing the outcome of a match with any help whatsoever. Doing so would inflate or deflate the coached player's actual abilities and distort the tournament's results.

The biggest mindgames aren't the obvious ones. A coach can't tell you to do something or play a differently AND stop the opponent/coach from adapting. Purely from a spectator's stance, it'd provide for better matches, just as the NFL or any other professional sport has fat white guys sitting in booths shouting over a mic.

Any assistance to the player should not be allowed during the match. If the other player adapts with his own skills as a player, then he is a good player. However, a coach telling you how best to adapt to your opponent does not reflect on the player's abilities and thus possibly distort the outcome of the match. Since the match result is the determinant of who is better, if a coach changes the "skill level" of a player, the outcome will be changed and will not accurate reflect on who is the better player.

I can see why this bothers a lot of people. Coaching "takes" away from the mental or abstract part of the game, letting the players "just do their job" and perform the tech skill. But isn't it always up to the player to decide what the correct situation is? Isn't it their job to perform?

It is the player's duty to decide what the correct situation is AND perform the correct actions. It is not the player's job to just perform the tech skill. They must be able to adapt and outsmart the opposing player as well. This is not a job meant for a coach.

If you disagree with that premise, we just are on opposite sides of the fence. You can say that it should be all for one man when in the ring. But even if you do, you still have to admit coaching in between matches should be permissible.

I can agree that coaching in between SETS should be permissible. A match is the ultimate determinant of who is the winner and therefore should not be interfered with.

I know that the match/set separation is somewhat arbitrary, but I think it's reasonable.

 

[Nihonjin]

If coaching were allowed, it'd be normal for big matches to have coaches on both sides.

Slickback already ripped your post apart, but I'd still like to ask you one thing, what if my coach is playing a match of his own? Or even better, what if my next opponent is my coach and he has a coach of his own?

 

[Jessup124]

^ Excellent point!

 

[forward]

Nihonjin you're saying that if my opponent plays better because people are cheering for him I can use that to play better myself. I'll feed off the fact that people are not cheering for me and strengthen my own mind.

It doesn't change the fact that people are still helping your opponent's skill and that the skill of holding a strong mindset is not entirely his own, therefore it defeats the purpose of a one on one fight which is the basis of your argument.

If you say that cheering for a player won't make them play better because it depends on the player then I will say coaching won't make them play better because it depends on the player.

You have no argument.

I have a theory that the best coaches, and the only ones that could ever be effective in tournament, don't make decisions for players, they just help players keep their focus to make the right decisions for themselves.

 

[Jessup124]

You're misunderstanding Nihonjin' point. It is simple: A player should participate in a 1 on 1 match ON HIS OWN COMPETENCE. If the crowd's cheer affects the player's concentration and his performance then that player was just not ready. Here let me explain this way: An one on one match should be played without ANY assistance. Period. Players who will allow themselves to be distracted by the crowd were never mentally ready to participate on a tournament level, especially if the crowd's jeers led to his downfall.