The "Coaching" Debate.

[KirbyKaze]

SWD, provided you are not actually Mango or something posing on an alt account I accept this MM for $20.

 

[M@1funk$hun]

Nihonjin, at first I thought you were an ******* because I saw you calling this guy an idiot for like 2 pages straight.
then I read what superwavedash was saying
I apologize for judging you
and superwavedash
calm down

 

[The Star King]

I was on the fence about this issue before this thread, but after SWD's last few posts it's downright impossible to side with this moron. I wonder if he realizes the longer he keeps this up, the more support he loses. Especially since SD himself knows the only reason he's behaving like this is that he knows he lost.

inb4 he stubbornly continues and tells me to MM him or something

 

[Teczer0]

Siding with one person in an argument is cool but give reasons besides you don't like someone.

The last page overall was a lot of flaming etc, again talk on the subject flaming and the like won't be tolerated.

 

[forward]

Removing the pressure from a tournament is a matter that should be addressed. The role of pressure in tournaments is up for debate so I will argue that the reduction of pressure by allowing coaching would benefit the tournament experience.

Tournaments have been defined as a test of skill but what skill is being tested is the current issue. The anti-coaching side has taken the stance that the skill being tested should be conducted between two players and two players only, with no outside factors influencing the match. A problem arises when the question of crowd cheering is brought up because it is an outside factor that is inevitable. The solution proposed is that since it is inevitable it should be treated as another measure of one's skill to overcome an opposing crowd or feelings of nervousness from being watched.

To say that coaching provides an unfair advantage because it is an outside factor influencing the game then by the same logic it must be said that a massive crowd cheering for one player is an unfair advantage for the same reason. An arbitrary line has been drawn by the anti-coaching side that says that coaching is going too far, that the distinction lie in the difference of the skills. Overcoming a crowd is an individual skill while being coached is a method of support that reduces the skill put in by the player being coached. This is not the case and it is a matter of perspective because the same argument can be applied vice-versa and neither one is more justified than the other. The change in perspective is as follows. The crowd reduces the skill put in by the player being cheered for because now the pressure they are applying in-game through spacing, tactics, mix up, etc is being supported and amplified by the pressure being applied by the crowd while at the same time it is an individual skill to overcome any benefits that a coach provides to their players.

The matter in debate is the validity of coaching's influence on the test of skill that is a tournament. Coaching is defined as an outside factor influencing the game so to understand how to deal with it one should look to crowd cheering because that is also an outside factor influencing the game. In the case of crowd cheering it is acceptable, that means the mere fact that coaching is an outside influence of the game is not the determining factor to its acceptance. The implications it has on the skill required is also comparable to crowd influence. Crowds amplify the pressure a given player creates making the match easier for them and coaches reduce the pressure a player faces making it easier for them. Allowing coaching gives opportunity for someone to play to the best of their ability, a desire that all tournament entrants share.

 

[metalreflectslime]

SWD is resorting to ad hominem attacks which is a clear indication that he is running out of arguments.

 

[Nihonjin]

@Forward
Dealing with pressure is a skill. You can train yourself to be unaffected by crowds, block them out mentally or block them out by putting in earplugs.

No amount of practice or skill is going to make up for coaching. It's something you're unable to defend against. That's what makes it unfair.

 

[Mahone]

stuff

I agree with you, and in one of my earlier posts i said that i think cheering should also be banned if we ban coaching, but i realize that this will never happen. No one will want to go to tournaments where cheering is banned because it takes away a lot of the fun of tournaments for most people.

So, even though i feel that cheering is unfair and have stated that it has personally affected how i have played many times, i accept it as a necessary evil to keep melee alive, but the same is not true for coaching.

@Forward
Dealing with pressure is a skill. You can train yourself to be unaffected by crowds or block them out by putting in earplugs.

No amount of practice or skill is going to make up for coaching. It's something completely out of the opposing players control. That's what makes it unfair.

I agree that dealing with pressure is a skill, but i find it unfair that while i had to learn to deal with cheering/constant trash talking because i play jiggs, my opponents get to play as gay as they want and have everyone cheer for them :/

Putting in earplugs puts you at a disadvantage no matter how slight and while it is not enough to change the outcome of the game, it still isn't fair that some players (like myself) are forced to deal with extra pressure, while players like drpp have 1000 people cheering for them at all times.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Coaching is just as much as a distraction as it is a helper. No johns.

not for everyone.
i consider it more of a distraction though (for me), when im playing i should be so focused i cant even bother listening to people around me.

 

[Jessup124]

Honestly! How can coaching be compared to cheering?! Sorry but they are not in the same category.
Edit: In fact, cheering against me would make me even more determine to beat my opponent. Coaching is getting tips how directly to gain the upper hand on the opponent and the game.

 

[Nihonjin]

I agree that dealing with pressure is a skill, but i find it unfair that while i had to learn to deal with cheering/constant trash talking because i play jiggs, my opponents get to play as gay as they want and have everyone cheer for them :/

Putting in earplugs puts you at a disadvantage no matter how slight and while it is not enough to change the outcome of the game, it still isn't fair that some players (like myself) are forced to deal with extra pressure, while players like drpp have 1000 people cheering for them at all times.

I was just giving solutions I've seen or used myself, I don't know how well earplugs work.

But like I said, you can teach yourself to not be affected by pressure. It's a necessary skill for anyone who wants to do well in tournaments. Sooner or later you'd have to learn it, so see it as a head start.

 

[Rubyiris]

Yes .

 

[tarheeljks]

I agree with you, and in one of my earlier posts i said that i think cheering should also be banned if we ban coaching, but i realize that this will never happen. No one will want to go to tournaments where cheering is banned because it takes away a lot of the fun of tournaments for most people.

So, even though i feel that cheering is unfair and have stated that it has personally affected how i have played many times, i accept it as a necessary evil to keep melee alive, but the same is not true for coaching.





I agree that dealing with pressure is a skill, but i find it unfair that while i had to learn to deal with cheering/constant trash talking because i play jiggs, my opponents get to play as gay as they want and have everyone cheer for them :/

Putting in earplugs puts you at a disadvantage no matter how slight and while it is not enough to change the outcome of the game, it still isn't fair that some players (like myself) are forced to deal with extra pressure, while players like drpp have 1000 people cheering for them at all times.

eh, the similarities are superficial though i see your point. i wouldn't go so far as to say that having the crowd behind you or opposed to you does not affect the match (things like homefield advantage are accepted as legitimate factors that affect results), but not in the same vein as having someone in your ear offering advice. the former is a byproduct of having spectators and isn't directly influenced by the player in a meaningful sense, while the latter is partnership. i wouldn't call coaching collusive b/c as described it's not deceptive, but it's against the spirit of the competition to some degree so i agree w/those who oppose it during matches

 

[Mahone]

I was just giving solutions I've seen or used myself, I don't know how well earplugs work.

But like I said, you can teach yourself to not be affected by pressure. It's a necessary skill for anyone who wants to do well in tournaments. Sooner or later you'd have to learn it, so see it as a head start.

I think there is a difference between the pressure you feel in a tournament and the kind of pressure from cheering/trash talking that i am talking about.

When i am playing in a tournament i feel nervous because there is money on the line, etc. However, there is also money on the line for my opponent, so if he does not feel nervous, that means he is just clearly better with dealing with pressure. If i am nervous because I'm not good at the matchup or because a bunch of people are watching, my opponent also is playing the matchup and having people watching so if he is not affected that means he is better at dealing with pressure.

Now, i want to give an example of cheering/trashtalking pressure. At herb 3 grand finals hbox was playing drpp. Now hbox had like 1 supporter while Drpp had pretty much everyone there, which was to be expected because it was a tournament in North Carolina.

So i was watching the match right behind the players, and if drpp messed something up, you would hear a bunch of people tell him not to worry about it/stack it up/whatever, and you could tell that this would ease drpp and allow him to focus on the match again without being as distracted with his mistake.....

Now on the other hand, when hbox made a mistake (granted this is just the worst example that i remember and this isn't what happened everytime), someone from the crowd would say something like "I thought he was 2nd best in the world", "get *****", "did this guy really beat m2k", etc. and a lot of people in the crowd would laugh.

Now hbox has stated that the trash talk did affect him and you could tell that it made it harder for him to recover from his mistakes and perhaps caused him to choke because he missed a crucial rest that i don't think ive ever seen him miss before (resting an illusion)

While we all say, well obviously if the trash talk gets really bad we regulate it, i have never seen that happen. I have had people talk trash to me while i was playing and seen other people get insulted while playing and have never seen a TO step in.

Of course hbox could learn to deal with it and i think he has, but why should he have to? Why can't we agree that trashtalking during matches is just as bad as coaching, while they are both definitely different in a lot of ways?

Trash talk on the boards or outside of matches can be good, because it generates hype and provides motivation for people to get better, but once the match finally comes i think it should just be a battle between the two people playing.

 

[Luma]

1 word, respect

cheering is fine aslong as both players have a crowd, otherwise its just disrespectfull, esp to those who come had to travel quite far for a tournament

 

[Armada]

Cheering is fine all the time.

Like Amsah said its something you can learn handle and something you will be better at after some time.

And yeah i know what i talking about and yeah allmost everyone cheering against me all the time

 

[TheGoat]

Cheering is fine all the time.

Like Amsah said its something you can learn handle and something you will be better at after some time.

And yeah i know what i talking about and yeah allmost everyone cheering against me all the time

lol Armada, don't let that get you down, everybody just naturally roots for USA because we don't want to be 2nd. I hope you come over to the US to play again.

 

[forward]

No amount of practice or skill is going to make up for coaching. It's something you're unable to defend against. That's what makes it unfair.

You certainly have not convinced me that it is impossible to defend against.

 

[Nihonjin]

You certainly have not convinced me that it is impossible to defend against.

Explain to me what I can do to defend against my opponents friend telling him what to do?
Yes, I can still beat him, but I can't affect the fact that it's putting me at a disadvantage.

 

[forward]

Explain to me what I can do to defend against my opponents friend telling him what to do?
Yes, I can still beat him, but I can't affect the fact that it's putting me at a disadvantage.

You can still beat him. That's enough.

 

[Nø Ca$h]

playing marth against sheik puts me at a disadvantage and theres nothing i can do about it.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

it's like having a microphone whispering you answers as you take a test

 

[DippnDots]

no cash, you can pick fox

forward, you can slap your opponents controller out of their hand when they're chaingrabbing you, and that single instance isnt necessarily enough to cost the person CGing a match, but it's illegal.

I'm not equating slapping a controller to coaching, just the thought process there


I think the difference between hearing cheering/trash talk and coaching is pretty definite also. Cheering/trash talk is just people being ********s or encouragement to their friends. It's an attempt to reduce or increase the nerve of someone. It all comes down to whether or not you choose to let it get to you. Coaching on the other hand, you have no control over whether or not it gets to you, because it's all on the other player choosing to take the advice or not.

 

[themiii]

Well, how about coaching in-between matches? There is a surefire way to defend against that. It is simply, change up your style. Use other tricks, mindgames etc.
With or without coaching, most players do not try to do the same exact thing they did in the previous games because it loses it's surprise tactic.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

ok, just personally:
Coaching should remain completely legal.

The way i see it, the actual assistance provided in coaching is so finite it will not effect the outcome. Think about it. When people talk while playing, most are forced to oscilate their focus between a conversation and the game. Sure, they can talk and listen, but they sacrifice their attention to the game, or vice versa.
This becomes very present when it comes to coaching. In a tournament game, players try to focus completely on the game. Having someone talking to you while doing this can be very distracting. He either is annoyed by a voice in his ear or he is taken away from the game momentarily to take advice. On top of this, have you ever tried to talk while in a tournament game, let alone take advice? It's one thing if you can actually take what's being said to a thought, but if you're able to do that and then effect your game in a positive way with that advice, then that's almost superhuman. Sure, little things can be changed (stop lazering so much), but most players will forget that in a stock's time or so, and should the advice be at all complicated, then internalizing it becomes even harder.

tldr, it's too hard to listen while you're playing, and almost impossible to change the way you play because someone is telling you to, especially in a tournament match.

mahone, no offense but i doubt you've ever had more than an offhand comment said about one of your matches, let alone people cheering against you because you play puff.

i can't say i've seen a match (grand finals excluded) where a player couldn't ask onlookers to shut up and they wouldn't. I don't think dealing with pressure should ever be considered a part of being good at melee, and i don't think random distractions should account for a loss of a game, but it's something that happens, and trying to get rid of it is just so sensitive as a community. I'm all for respect but I'd much rather enjoy the hype of a tournament then not have people trashtalk.

edit: holy **** y'all gotta stop bashing swd just because amsah got in a discussion with him
"ad homminem" ooh you fancy, huh, not like the guy he was responding to JUST ****IN DID THAT ****

 

[BigWenz]

ok, just personally:
Coaching should remain completely legal.

The way i see it, the actual assistance provided in coaching is so finite it will not effect the outcome. Think about it. When people talk while playing, most are forced to oscilate their focus between a conversation and the game. Sure, they can talk and listen, but they sacrifice their attention to the game, or vice versa.
This becomes very present when it comes to coaching. In a tournament game, players try to focus completely on the game. Having someone talking to you while doing this can be very distracting. He either is annoyed by a voice in his ear or he is taken away from the game momentarily to take advice. On top of this, have you ever tried to talk while in a tournament game, let alone take advice? It's one thing if you can actually take what's being said to a thought, but if you're able to do that and then effect your game in a positive way with that advice, then that's almost superhuman. Sure, little things can be changed (stop lazering so much), but most players will forget that in a stock's time or so, and should the advice be at all complicated, then internalizing it becomes even harder.

tldr, it's too hard to listen while you're playing, and almost impossible to change the way you play because someone is telling you to, especially in a tournament match.

mahone, no offense but i doubt you've ever had more than an offhand comment said about one of your matches, let alone people cheering against you because you play puff.

i can't say i've seen a match (grand finals excluded) where a player couldn't ask onlookers to shut up and they wouldn't. I don't think dealing with pressure should ever be considered a part of being good at melee, and i don't think random distractions should account for a loss of a game, but it's something that happens, and trying to get rid of it is just so sensitive as a community. I'm all for respect but I'd much rather enjoy the hype of a tournament then not have people trashtalk.

edit: holy **** y'all gotta stop bashing swd just because amsah got in a discussion with him
"ad homminem" ooh you fancy, huh, not like the guy he was responding to JUST ****IN DID THAT ****

the part in bold is just plain wrong. coaching can have a huge impact on a match. the thread favorite jman vs eggm from apex showed how coaching can have an impact on a match. also dr. pp vs lucky from pound 4. from what people have said lucky was coached by hugs and as a result, lucky went from being 4 stocked to winning the set. i personally think coaching in between matches is fine as you can do that in any other competitive sport/event. but to say coaching cant have a big impact on a match is just plain wrong.

 

[KAOSTAR]

I really dont think coaching should be allowed. I feel that whatever preparations you need to make to beat your opponent need to be done b4 the set starts and after sets finish.{specifically referring to outside help, notes lol, vidz, tips from players}

the crowd should just watch what they say and try not to give advice.

not a perfect system but hey. Id be satisfied with coaching just being considered frowned upon.


but if its all or nothing, then realistically its easier to just say allow coaching cuz its tooo hard to control the crowd/enforce minor rules.

 

[Wobbles]

I'm really not sure what to say that Amsah hasn't said already, but hey I'll give it a go.

Most of us are in agreement that having a coach can change the way you play and help you make better decisions during the match. It can't turn you into an amazing player if you aren't already one, but between two players having a close battle, a coach can give you information that you need to win.

Let's repeat that: having a coach can turn a losing game into a winning one.

The crux of the issue is whether or not having one person directly influence results like that is okay with you. Obviously, I'm against it. Here are some reasons why.

1) You enter the tournament for yourself, by yourself. You do not enter with a coach, or somebody to play for you in case you're feeling a little under the weather. You enter so that it will be you versus your opponent. The skills measured by this game are skills of execution, knowledge, reaction, adaptation, prediction, judgment, attitude, and so on. When you introduce a coach, you start testing the skills of the coach as well, somebody who is not, from the tournament's viewpoint, a participant in the match.

2) Anybody can be your coach. You can pay somebody to coach you if you want. Could you imagine two players, evenly skilled, having a bidding war for another person to be their coach? And again, we have to accept that not all coaches are equal, so this means that you are being tested on not just your strength, but on the strength of whoever gives you advice. And hell, what happens when your coach has to play his own match and leaves you alone and now you suck because you can't think for yourself? Do we want to encourage players to rely on people to think for them?

3) Not everybody has access to equal coaching. If you aren't buddies with a great coach, you're punished. Is this fair? We don't want to test player adaptation, we want to test who they are friends with and the region they're from. Sorry Oklahoma player, you have to play against Cali player and his buddy Joseph Marquez feels like giving him pointers. Don't think it's fair? Your fault for being from Oklahoma.

Two players get to choose their character and agree on the stage they play on, playing with the same rules. Everything is set so that the playing field is as even as possible for them before they make selections that will affect the game's outcome; the only external factor players bring into that game is their skill. That is, ideally, the sole imbalancing factor of the match; how good two players are. A match should only be unfair for a player because his opponent is better. Better includes better skill in a matchup, better counterpick knowledge, etc. Should better include "better at convincing good players to give you advice?"

Yes, a coach will make you play better. The question is whether or not, in a one versus one situation, you deserve to be playing better under the influence of somebody else's power. What's the point of trying to deceive your opponent, of trying to outplay and adapt to him, if somebody watching from the outside is going to come in and say "hey don't fall for this" and ruin your work?

APEX, Taj vs. Dr. PP--that match went to game 3. During it, I remember one point where Taj, playing M2, was edgeguarding PP and tricking him into recovering low, which is advantageous for M2. PP has his crew sitting behind him, and they start telling him to recover high, which helps him get around the edgeguards and helps him extend his stocks. They tell him this DURING an edgeguard, when Taj was about to take his stock, and it helped him get away with that life.

I'm sitting next to Taj, and there's nothing I can tell him about fighting Falco that he doesn't already know. PP didn't have M2 experience, but you know what he DID have? People watching and analyzing the match FOR HIM, feeding him information DURING IT, removing any need for PP to actually learn and figure it out before he loses. Does that seem right to you? That Taj had worked PP into a disadvantageous position only for people in the crowd to give PP the answer to escape from it? It became Taj versus PP + everybody he came to the tournament with. We call that singles?

I won't claim to know whether PP would or wouldn't have won without his crew helping him. I'm not psychic, PP is amazing, etc., but he was making big mistakes that his crew told him not to make, and nobody can deny that it helped. Because if they didn't think it would help him win, why would they bother? His crew was doing something that tangibly affected his odds of victory, while Taj didn't have that benefit. It had nothing to do with Taj or PP, but the players behind them. Does that sound legit to you? If it does, **** you.

How about this; if you want to be somebody's coach, you have to register as their coach at the time of play (which includes an entrance fee), you may not register as anybody else's coach (for the same reason you can't enter the bracket twice as a player), and you must be present for ALL their matches or THEY are DQ'ed. Because how fair is it for AwesomeMarth to play against you while Cactuar is coaching you (so he's fighting against you + 100000 because Cactuar is best), but then your next opponent doesn't have to because Cactuar is taking a nap? Or how about if Cactuar is even better friends with your next opponent, so he's coaching him instead!

Or Cactuar decides he's not going to coach either of you. But whatever happened to making players play better? It's practically his obligation to coach BOTH of you during the match so that the audience will see both players playing at 120%. And you get to see Cactuar fighting against his own coaching, a paradox definitely worth paying a venue fee to watch.

tl;dr **** coaching.

 

[Druggedfox]

@Wobbles

We should attempt to convince cactuar to coach against himself, it'd be worth all the effort =D

 

[KAOSTAR]

I kinda think that if u register for coach you shouldn't be able to enter either.

what happens when cactus plays against his student? lol get *****.

conflict of interests really.

 

[forward]

Good post Rob, and I hate to be a **** and do this but I think it is necessary...

Most of us are in agreement that having a CROWD CHEERING FOR YOU can change the way you play and help you make better decisions during the match. It can't turn you into an amazing player if you aren't already one, but between two players having a close battle, a CROWD can give you CONFIDENCE that you need to win.

Let's repeat that: having a CROWD CHEERING FOR YOU can turn a losing game into a winning one.

The crux of the issue is whether or not having A GROUP OF PEOPLE directly influence results like that is okay with you. Obviously, I'm against it. Here are some reasons why.

1) You enter the tournament for yourself, by yourself. You do not enter with a CHEER LEADING SQUAD, or somebody to play for you in case you're feeling a little under the weather. You enter so that it will be you versus your opponent. The skills measured by this game are skills of execution, knowledge, reaction, adaptation, prediction, judgment, attitude, and so on. When you introduce a CROWD CHEERING FOR YOU, you start testing the skills of the CROWD'S CHEERS, PEOPLE WHO ARE not, from the tournament's viewpoint, a participant in the match.

2) Anybody can be your CROWD. You can pay PEOPLE to CHEER FOR you if you want. Could you imagine two players, evenly skilled, having a bidding war for PEOPLE to be their CHEER LEADERS? And again, we have to accept that not all CHEER LEADERS are equal, so this means that you are being tested on not just your strength, but on the strength of THE CROWD CHEERING FOR YOU. And hell, what happens when your CROWD has to play THEIR own match and leaves you alone and now you suck because you can't MOTIVATE yourself? Do we want to encourage players to rely on people to MOTIVATE them?

3) Not everybody has access to equal CHEER LEADERS. If you aren't buddies with a great CROWD, you're punished. Is this fair? We don't want to test player adaptation, we want to test who they are friends with and the region they're from. Sorry Oklahoma player, you have to play against Cali player and his buddIES FROM SO CAL WHO feel like giving him SUPPORT. Don't think it's fair? Your fault for being from Oklahoma.

Two players get to choose their character and agree on the stage they play on, playing with the same rules. Everything is set so that the playing field is as even as possible for them before they make selections that will affect the game's outcome; the only external factor players bring into that game is their skill. That is, ideally, the sole imbalancing factor of the match; how good two players are. A match should only be unfair for a player because his opponent is better. Better includes better skill in a matchup, better counterpick knowledge, etc. Should better include "better at convincing PEOPLE TO CHEER FOR YOU?"

Yes, a CROWD will make you play better. The question is whether or not, in a one versus one situation, you deserve to be playing better under the influence of A CROWD'S power. What's the point of trying to DEMORALIZE your opponent, of trying to outplay and adapt to him, if PEOPLE watching from the outside ARE going to come in and say "YOU GOT THIS MAN KEEP IT UP" and ruin your work?

I think that in all of these cases coaching is the same as a crowd. Any of those reasons can be applied to crowds as well. It fits very easily.

Now, your example of Taj and PP is a good example and these are the examples that we need to be looking at. Taj is a good friend of mine and I want him to do well in tourneys so it is difficult not to bring in personal feelings. The above scenario does make me resent coaching a little bit but I have to ask questions.

Could PP have figured this out without the help of his crowd? Why couldn't Taj out play his recovery while PP recovered high? If Taj has more experience in the match why didn't that experience help him once PP changed his recovery? Has Taj never encountered a Falco that recovers high? I also don't want to undermine the effort that PP used. A person of free will ultimately makes their own decisions so PP's decision to recover high, even though it may have been sparked by coaches, was one that he believed and understood. Also, what if the crowd was wrong? What if Taj had another trick up his sleeve that may have been even worse for a high recovery?

It will probably come down to opinion and personal preference in the long run, similar to why we play with no items. It was popular opinion that randomness should not be a part of the game at tournament level and if popular opinion supports that coaching should not be allowed then I will accept that. As it stands there are people on both sides. We should probably do a poll if we want to create a tournament standard.

Anyways, I can think of a lot of situations where I coached people in a match and they still lost because they couldn't "see what I saw." I have told people to DI a move a certain way but if they couldn't anticipate it so they didn't DI. I have told people to stop attacking when they see their opponent dash dancing because they are being baited but they could not convince themselves that this was true and thus fell for the same bait. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything with this paragraph, I am only telling some of my experiences on the matter that have lead me to my opinion.

On the other hand I have had success coaching players. I found it to be a fun experience trying to get my player to better understand the situation he was facing. I felt no moral objection to the fact that the other player was not being coached because I felt that they still had chance to win. The ones that got upset for losing to my player were, imo, losing because of the mental distraction of thinking about how their opponent was being coached and they weren't. I believe that if they kept their head in the game they could have gone to the next yomi level, strategy, style, mix up, etc and still outplayed my player. Once again, this paragraph is not an argument to allow coaching, it is just my personal experience.

 

[Luma]

forward we banned items because of explosive capsules, not because they are too random

anyway imo you shouldnt let your personal experience become your opinion, i never got coached during a set but i still know/believe that it can turn a set around

 

[Mahone]

stuff about crowds

Yet again, i agree that if we don't allow coaching we should not allow crowds, but what i think you don't understand is that imo we missed our chance to stop crowds, but we still have a chance to stop coaching...

Of course from a logical standpoint they should either both be banned or both be allowed, but crowds have become acceptable in tournament settings and would be very difficult to get rid of. Most people here have stated they would rather have the hype that comes with the crowds than have the game be slightly more balanced...

but as of now, there is no right or wrong when it comes to coaching and that is what this thread is trying to decide. I have already said in my previous posts that crowds are perhaps a necessary evil to keep melee alive but coaching isn't.

I understand its hard to not look at this completely logically, and i can tell from your posts that you are really trying to approach this topic in the most logical way possible, but sometimes **** isn't like that, and this is one of those cases.

I completely understand your argument and i agree with it, but i would rather have the game be more balanced than allow it to be less balanced because i was too stubborn to allow crowds and ban coaching.

 

[Nihonjin]

You can still beat him. That's enough.

That's not actually defending from it. The effects of coaching are still clearly there even if you win.

[edit]

Off to work, will reply in about 9 hours from now.

 

[forward]

Yet again, i agree that if we don't allow coaching we should not allow crowds, but what i think you don't understand is that imo we missed our chance to stop crowds, but we still have a chance to stop coaching...

Well, I am also under the opinion that, logic aside, I would prefer coaching to be accepted so that as a spectator at a tournament I am seeing the highest quality matches. As a spectator, I don't care about a person's ability to overcome a crowd, though I would and do respect that ability, I want to see high level play more than anything else. I would not want to watch somebody fall for the same tactic that I can easily spot flaws in, that would bore me. At the same time, if a strategy can be repeated and the player, along with the help of their coach, cannot overcome that strategy then I would be more impressed by the skill of the player who can use that strategy so effectively.

Mahone, these are my non-logical and personal views on the matter. Melee is a beautiful game. I've always enjoyed great matches and I probably will for a long time. I think that with coaching I would see more beautiful matches. With coaching I thing it would add another joyous human element to the game the same way that crowds do (I also love crowds btw, so I'm consistent lol). It would allow players to live up to their potential, not inhibit them. I'm an optimist, I'm an enabler, this is how I am as a person. I want to see people play at their very best, if playing at their best involves advice from a friend then so be it, I simply want to see them play their best.

Nihonjin: It is the exact same as how the effects of a crowd are still there even if you win.

Anyways, I'm going to stop posting and lurk this thread for a while and see what others think because I've said everything that I need to. If anyone else wants to discuss this with me I'd be willing to do that through PM.

 

[tarheeljks]

for those who think coaching is fair, what distinction(s) do you draw b/t it and something like using a modded controller (outside of one being illegal and one not ). to rephrase, how is it unfair to have a controller that augments tech skill, but fair to have a person that augments decision making. idk that the two are identical forms of enhancement, but they seem similar enough that opposing one and not the other is inconsistent

 

[BigWenz]

can people please stop comparing coaching to crowds cheering. a crowd cheering just adds to the environment of a match like a crowd cheering for the home team does in any sport. only thing a crowd does is give a player more confidence in themselves if it does anything at all. however regardless of how confident someone is that doesnt mean hes going to win. a crowd does not change a persons skill level.

if someone is being coached then it is no longer that players skill vs another players skill but now a players skill + their coaches skill vs another players skill.

so please stop comparing crowds to coaching cause they are completely different

 

[Mahone]

Mahone, these are my non-logical and personal views on the matter. Melee is a beautiful game. I've always enjoyed great matches and I probably will for a long time. I think that with coaching I would see more beautiful matches. With coaching I thing it would add another joyous human element to the game the same way that crowds do (I also love crowds btw, so I'm consistent lol). It would allow players to live up to their potential, not inhibit them. I'm an optimist, I'm an enabler, this is how I am as a person. I want to see people play at their very best, if playing at their best involves advice from a friend then so be it, I simply want to see them play their best.

I understand that you want to see the highest level of play, but i think it is much more amazing to see someone do it all on their own. If coaches are allowed i would never know if mango's coach whispered in mango's ear that armada is going to roll or if armada's coach told armada to roll, and he just did it without thinking about it. It will never be clear how much the coach affected the game, and knowing that under all the pressure, mango read Armada and had that much confidence in himself to rest makes it a million times more amazing for me, but i guess this is just a difference in opinion.

Melee isn't broke, so why fix it? Imagine the nightmares that will come along with legalizing/making it common to have coaches. No one will want to be at a disadvantage so everyone will want a coach. If a pro is friends with two (more likely many more) people he will have to decide who to coach. Most coaches will get tired of coaching every game and will just want to play friendlies or something, at best they will not always give the same amount of focus in each game and we will get COACHING JOHNS!! (oh god i can just imagine it now)

Also, should the coaches receive a cut of the money? Surely they should but how much?.... and we all know there will be cases of people not paying their coaches the full amount and more hostility in the community. Just as people now tend to stop playing if they have no one close to them to get better with, there will be people who will stop entering tournaments if their coach isn't there. It will likely slow down tournaments because they will talk a lot in between matches, etc.

Of course some good will come of it, i bet some beautiful games would be played, and some players would get better faster, and perhaps people would start to get more out of watching videos because of their coaching practice, etc. but the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[Pi]

lol@people saying i'm regressing to ad hominem attacks because i'm running out of arguments
and another hearty lol at people who are choosing a side based on how they view me as a player


if you'd been reading the **** has been going in circles for ages


the points have already been established

is coaching fair?
yes, duh, of course it's fair, everyone can have a coach.

should it be allowed in tournament?
comes down to how you look at the smash tournament environment

that's all it is

p.s.

lol@KK having stipulations
no i'm not mango
but the limit is 10$
AND NOW THAT YOU SCRUBS KNOW I'M NOT MANGO, AND AM ACCEPTING ALL 10$ MM'S @ POUND5
GET AT ME, I AIM TO MAKE BANK AT THIS TOURNAMENT, FROM SINGLES & FROM LOUD MOUTH ARROGANT LITTLE SCRUBS TEEE HEEEE

 

[Luma]

everyone can also punch you in the face during a set, thats also fair right?