No, I said that it's more competitive by your rules. Personally, I don't think one or two people dominating a competition means that a game is more competitive. But, that doesn't help this discussion.
And yes, several poker players have either won numerous times or placed high several years in a row.
Johnny Chan springs to mind.
For some reason, I'm still not convinced. I look at that, and I see a few random wins, with streaks of no more than two years, and much longer losing streaks. Yes, he wins fairly often, but not enough to show that he's better than anyone. So, either he's very close in his ability to his opponents, or he got unlucky a few years, and he's actually better than everyone. Plus, this says nothing about his competition, what percentage of the participants and winners are repeat competitors.
Compare this to Ken Hoang. He was so far beyond the rest of us in 2003 that it took three or four years before people even began to figure out how to beat him. One or two very good players were able to take him out early on, but this wasn't a pattern, but by and large, he didn't really lose out on a year of tourneys until '07, and there were really only three or four other players that he admitted to having trouble against.
Of course, tourney results only tell so much. Pit Ken against me, and I might win one match out of fifty or so. Pit Johnny Chan against someone of equal distance, and I guarantee you that Chan will not win as many hands.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Just because invincibility frames keep a bad thing from being worse don't make them a good thing. If I get punched in the stomach instead of the groin, that doesn't make the punch good.
So then you agree that tripping is bad?
Your personal experiences don't matter any more than mine. I've excluded my personal experience (in which I've never lost or won a game due to tripping) because you could very well make the assumption that the people I play against didn't take full advantage. Likewise, I could assume the people you saw get techchased should have simply tried to attack instead, making the whole thing an okizeme-like mixup. Again, that's neither here nor there.
All I'm asking for is to show, in real competition, where tripping was a deciding factor in a match. I don't see what's irrational about that.
I agree with all that. Every last bit of it.
My only argument, though, is whether this is significant enough to "destroy" the competitive scene. As the topic creator said, on paper, yes. However, I'd rather see results than speculation at this point.
When I have the advantage, I'm more likely to dash in order to maintain my advantage. If I'm dashing, and my opponent is not, I have a greater chance of tripping, and thus losing my advantage. From a trip, I have four options: roll left, roll right, get up, or attack. My opponent, on the other hand, can shield, dash, charge a smash, jump, crouch, camp... the list goes on. In essence, not only have I lost my advantage, my opponent has gained an advantage, regardless of his skill level. If I was about to KO my opponent when I tripped, then the outcome of the match has been drastically altered. It doesn't have to be a KO coming from a trip; there are many ways in which tripping lessens the effect of skill. This isn't just theoretical. It happens. I shouldn't have to go look for proof just because you can't observe.
I've never said it destroys competitive Brawl either. I'm saying it makes it less competitive than Melee, and it shouldn't exist. For the life of me, I can't see how you find this to be
.
