Legality What are your thoughts on Banning Coaching?

[MewtwoForce]

Coaching has been bothering me for awhile and I want to see where the community stands on the idea of having it banned. I want to point out why its unfair.

The main issue with coaching is that it isn't simply fair for somebody who doesn't have a coach to have to fight somebody who does have one. It is an obvious unfair advantage that cannot in anyway be argued as fair for the opponent to have somebody looking over their shoulder making good observations to help them in the next game while you have nobody doing that for you. Just imagine you're there playing by yourself and narrowly winning and then you hear the coach next to you telling that player things you're doing that your opponent never thought of on their own. And then they make adjustments they wouldn't otherwise make and beat you. That happened to some players I know. They felt cheated out of their wins.

This next part is a moral issue that i'm opinionated on but the other thing with coaching is that you aren't really winning on your own if you used a coach to help you during the actual game. The reads and adjustments you are making with their help during the set are uncharacteristic of how you would normally play and outside of your skill level because the coach is there to help you. So the wins feel dirty because you're not really winning on your own.

 

[20XXwingleborgXxx]

Coaching is not allowed! There is no one sitting besides you at Evo.
Coaches cant help teams anymore during csgo matches too.
Just tell it to them, people have to be prepared for anything and earn their wins in a Legitimate way!

Edit: Found out that you only where allowed to get 30sec with Coaching.

 

[Onmitsu]

But they are winning on their own. They just have someone telling them what they're doing wrong and what to watch for. The playing isn't on the coach

 

[Dolla Pills]

Honestly I don't really care either way.

 

[Synnett]

It drives me pepperino too. It's usually looked upon so we don't see it too often. At an extent I wouldn't mind it between games, but it's better not.

The thing is, the coaching helps both players improve as one learns a new way to approach and the other learns how to deal with it, but I realize how in tournament it could be annoying.

 

[Sutekh]

If a coach is helping people adapt quicker mid-set, it's not just the player winning any longer. Being able to quickly pick up on an opponent's habits is a skill players develop over time, and it cheapens the competitive experience to have another person involved in a what is supposed to be 1-on-1.

 

[ThunderCat]

It's my honest opinion that having a coach is unnecessary. It's like having two people do half a job. If you can't adapt, you should lose. Plain and simple. I'm not against coaches but I think they should only be available to consult between sets and not between matches. It breaks momentum and **** that ****.

 

[F. Stein]

W/E, who honestly cares that much? The thing is that coaches help us to improve and play to our fullest potential. You don't have one? Why not? You obviously must not want to play to your fullest potential then. you aren't PLAYING TO WIN, anyone remember that publication back in 2010?

Besides, professional sports have coaches. Boxers have coaches, martial artists, shooters, swordsmen (fencing), heck olympic athletes have coaches. There is no moral johns to be pulled here, there is just a person that is trying to find the best way to improve and to win like other sports have done in the past. Melee isn't a sport? w/e, it's the same principle as one on one combat which has always had coaches available to mentor you. If you want to go without a coach in most things like boxing or ice skating you are either incredibly gifted or an idiot. Honestly, coaches would help the entire scene to not only grow but to cultivate the lower level players into mid level contenders at a faster rate.

Coaches are mentors, mentors are a good thing. I'm trying to find some sense in the OP but all I see are johns and him hiding behind the 'morality' play.

 

[-ACE-]

No coaching mid-game. It's unfair as it takes away from the mental fortitude and adaptation ability necessary to compete at a high level. One's ability to find a good coach is not something we should test for in tournament. Popularity and social connections can get you a good coach. We aren't here to test for those things. Being able to analyze your own play mid-match is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. Hindsight is 20/20, and everyone sees more when they watch their matches after playing them. By having a third party watch your match, you get new insight you never would've gotten otherwise. In-game is too much.

 

[Onmitsu]

No coaching mid-game. It's unfair as it takes away from the mental fortitude and adaptation ability necessary to compete at a high level. One's ability to find a good coach is not something we should test for in tournament. Popularity and social connections can get you a good coach. We aren't here to test for those things. Being able to analyze your own play mid-match is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. Hindsight is 20/20, and everyone sees more when they watch their matches after playing them. By having a third party watch your match, you get new insight you never would've gotten otherwise. In-game is too much.

Yeah mid game is more of a distraction. After each game would be fine like rounds in boxing.

 

[-ACE-]

Yeah mid game is more of a distraction. After each game would be fine like rounds in boxing.

Well, that's a different scenario. There's a lot of things the cornermen in boxing have to get done in little time, and to ask them not to say a single thing advice-wise is kinda crazy and hard to enforce. In melee, it's just you against your opponent; no extra people have to be there. The concept of coaching in melee came about from someone wanting a competitive advantage. They didn't say "get PPMD to coach my opponent to make it fair" lol. They want to win, and they'll try their best to justify them having a coach as fair, but it's not. It's too hard to enforce no coaching between games, even the crowd could help you with things. But mid game is ridiculous.

Moving on, let's say you're mango's little brother, and you have mango coaching you through pools, while your opponents from OOS have no one. Is that fair? Well, that's a good indicator of your opinion on coaching.

 

[Onmitsu]

I personally think coaching is fine as long as it's not in the middle of the games. In between them I don't mind. I don't have one myself, nor do I plan to get one. I just have a friend who will coach some during practice sessions if we're together for it.

 

[-ACE-]

I personally think coaching is fine as long as it's not in the middle of the games. In between them I don't mind. I don't have one myself, nor do I plan to get one. I just have a friend who will coach some during practice sessions if we're together for it.

That's fine, and I'm not saying you're wrong. Just be weary of the "I don't mind if the speed limit is 150mph, I don't plan on going that fast" mentality when it comes to determining legality.

 

[F. Stein]

If it isn't fair then you should have gotten a coach. Is it fair that some players are sponsored? Is it fair that some have more physical time to play than others? It's a matter of doing what you can to win. Saying that coaching is unfair is a scrub answer.

I agree with no coaching mudgame, between rounds should be fine. And if you want to be serious you should have an everyday coach to push you like a real event

 

[Onmitsu]

If it isn't fair then you should have gotten a coach. Is it fair that some players are sponsored? Is it fair that some have more physical time to play than others? It's a matter of doing what you can to win. Saying that coaching is unfair is a scrub answer.

I agree with no coaching mudgame, between rounds should be fine. And if you want to be serious you should have an everyday coach to push you like a real event

This. It's part of winning without cheating. Hell, even peer reviews in these discussion boards are coaching outside of tournaments.

 

[-ACE-]

If it isn't fair then you should have gotten a coach. Is it fair that some players are sponsored? Is it fair that some have more physical time to play than others? It's a matter of doing what you can to win. Saying that coaching is unfair is a scrub answer.

I agree with no coaching mudgame, between rounds should be fine. And if you want to be serious you should have an everyday coach to push you like a real event

Do you really think that popularity and social connections is something we should test for in tournament? Because that is what normally gets you a good coach.

Players that have no one to practice with, anti-social players, and players who are not fluent in English will have a much harder time finding a coach, so they automatically have a competitive disadvantage.

Just saying.

 

[Onmitsu]

You realize that there's disadvantages with everyone. Some people have work, school, children, etc. that cause them to not get the practice in they need. As long as you're not actively cheating, there's no reason you shouldn't try to get as much advantage as possible. That's sports in general.

 

[-ACE-]

You realize that there's disadvantages with everyone. Some people have work, school, children, etc. that cause them to not get the practice in they need

Yes I do realize this, as it essentially epitomizes common sense. Do YOU realize that a second opinion gives you an advantage that you could never achieve by yourself? Do YOU realize that there are things you can change, as well as things you can't, when determining legality? I don't really think it's best to compare a lack of practice to an entirely different kind of advantage.

BTW, before you ask someone if they realize something extremely obvious, look at what they've posted. I have already stated my stance. Now, for lack of a better phrase, I'm just playing devil's advocate in order to see the actual reasoning within the argument for coaching being legal. I just want to see opinions on the logic behind the stance. So far, all I see is the equivalent of "the coach isn't pressing the buttons for you", which doesn't really accomplish much. It's right up there with "having a coach doesn't mean you automatically win".

 

[Onmitsu]

Even during practice, you have peers with you who not also see things you don't. It's literally no different than having a coach telling you between games to keep and eye out for this and focus more on that. You can't record every single match you play to analyze later, so coach helps with that.

 

[F. Stein]

Do you really think that popularity and social connections is something we should test for in tournament? Because that is what normally gets you a good coach.

Players that have no one to practice with, anti-social players, and players who are not fluent in English will have a much harder time finding a coach, so they automatically have a competitive disadvantage.

Just saying.

I doubt those are the only factors that get you a coach, even if they are... maybe we need to work on that as a community.

As one of those antisocial players that lived in a state with less people than any major city, with a scene comprised of 25 people statewide, yes I still hold those views.

These honestly sound like excuses. Other sports don't make Johns about coaching because it's the best way to be pushed. Why are we creatin a limitation? I'm going to advise reading the publication 'playing to win' from 2010 because I really believe that this falls into the 'scrub limitation' category that people create for themselves when it does nothing but hold them back.

 

[-ACE-]

Even during practice, you have peers with you who not also see things you don't. It's literally no different than having a coach telling you between games to keep and eye out for this and focus more on that. You can't record every single match you play to analyze later, so coach helps with that.

Legality has no control over that... I mentioned situations like this in my last post.

I doubt those are the only factors that get you a coach, even if they are... maybe we need to work on that as a community.

As one of those antisocial players that lived in a state with less people than any major city, with a scene comprised of 25 people statewide, yes I still hold those views.

These honestly sound like excuses. Other sports don't make Johns about coaching because it's the best way to be pushed. Why are we creatin a limitation? I'm going to advise reading the publication 'playing to win' from 2010 because I really believe that this falls into the 'scrub limitation' category that people create for themselves when it does nothing but hold them back.

Having to think about game tactics on your own doesn't seem like something is purposely holding you back...

Why do colleges tell you to write your essays for admission without outside help? Is it because it's a competition? Is it because they want you see what you are capable of on your own? Is it because they are interested in solely the applicant's thoughts, and what he/she is able to come up with? Do you feel like this stipulation is holding you back?

With the words "johns", "excuses", "scrub", and "You do realize" being thrown around, I can see we are getting to the meat of this discussion. Lol.

 

[F. Stein]

Belittling someone's opinion because you disagree with it or their choice of language which is only quoted from the publication that I mentioned isn't really driving your point across.

All I'm seeing you say I'd thay people should have to do it on their own and that coaches are not fairly accessible to all. The first part is agreeable but I appeal to the idea that coaching enhances development far more than a single entity can in the competition world. My proof lies in several forms of competition from boxing, to shooting, to organized teams, even posting videos back here on smashboards is a delayed form of coaching. I want to assert that coaching between rounds is identical to coaching on the sidelines between rounds (boxing) or plays (football).

Obviously if this was an acceptable thought then obviously you come to 'when' and 'how' coaching can be implemented.

If you want to use writing as an example, I would argue that your example is fundamentally flawed because only a fool proceeds alone. You brainstorm, bounce ideas off other people, draft it, read it outloud, take it ilto the writing lab, proofread, have other people proofread for you... if you truly care about a professional paper or article or project then you utilize all the resources available. To not do that would be a lack of motivation, skill and pride in your work.

My major was English, my focus is professional paper writing. I cite my degree as my proof for these common examples of tools used.

Your second issue of 'fair access' is probably the most valud, or rather the one that I understand the best. But I see coaching as a tool to assist people in performing to their highest potential. I am one of the people that will never be well enough liked to have a mentor or a coach unless I pay for it. If I am in the minority that you are so concerned about fair access of coaching to and I have no problem with coaching.... doesn't that make your point seem odd?

 

[-ACE-]

Well I tried to make it clear that we essentially have the same stance, and I was doing something similar to playing devil's advocate in order to see other players' reasoning behind their opinion. But after more or less being called a scrub full of excuses I am accused of belittling your opinion, which as I said before is essentially the same as my own. I won't post anymore. I mean, why discuss the reasoning behind a position if questioning someone makes you an ***hole even if you agree? Doesn't seem worth it.

 

[F. Stein]

I wasn't calling you a scrub again, I was referring to a specific type of excuse or mentality that people call into in the publication "Playing to Win" from 2010... I'd never call you a scrub. I'm trying to point out a thought that isn't beneficial to competitive play. Nothing is personal, I just posted to argue my point and prove it. Using whatever fuel that I had. Wasn't personal at all.

 

[anikom15]

It should be mandatory for a coach to get part of winnings if his player qualifies for a prize, say 25%.

 

[Yashoku]

There's a lot of people who don't get how melee is played. Each game when you're at a tourney you should be adapting your play style. This is a major skill that comes with smash games and it's vital to high level play; during the game you're not only playing to the best of your ability but also observing everything they do to capitalize on you and also what you can capitalize on. Coaching essentially eliminates that, having a guy on your shoulder saying, "every time you shine him he alternates between tech in place or techs away" or "every time you ledgedash he shield grabs, go for a ledge dash spot dodge." This is not only obscenely advantageous towards the one who has a coach and one who doesn't but also ruins the skill of adapting in a match.

Essentially why I think it should be banned is because in all sports, including e sports and definitely in smash, coaches help you adapt. It's not like mid game a coach will increase your ability to play by any degree but since the game is so based in adaptation it really can throw off results that don't reflect players ability.

Think of it this way: it's like if you were playing chess while arm wrestling. It's a lot easier if you have a coach telling you how to move your pieces so you can just focus on just arm wrestling while they have to focus on both playing chess and arm wrestling.

 

[Onmitsu]

There's a lot of people who don't get how melee is played. Each game when you're at a tourney you should be adapting your play style. This is a major skill that comes with smash games and it's vital to high level play; during the game you're not only playing to the best of your ability but also observing everything they do to capitalize on you and also what you can capitalize on. Coaching essentially eliminates that, having a guy on your shoulder saying, "every time you shine him he alternates between tech in place or techs away" or "every time you ledgedash he shield grabs, go for a ledge dash spot dodge." This is not only obscenely advantageous towards the one who has a coach and one who doesn't but also ruins the skill of adapting in a match.

Essentially why I think it should be banned is because in all sports, including e sports and definitely in smash, coaches help you adapt. It's not like mid game a coach will increase your ability to play by any degree but since the game is so based in adaptation it really can throw off results that don't reflect players ability.

Think of it this way: it's like if you were playing chess while arm wrestling. It's a lot easier if you have a coach telling you how to move your pieces so you can just focus on just arm wrestling while they have to focus on both playing chess and arm wrestling.

Well a lot of us were saying as long as they aren't coaching mid game. Like in between games during the match is fine