why i think coaching is an issue that needs to be addressed (serious topic)

[PoundSlap]

With smash receiving more and more exposure and the game having established its reputation in the competitive scene, strict rules need to be complied in order to represent a fair environment for everyone. This is absolutely vital, as there is a lot of money and fame on the line and robbing someone off his victory could result in a person not making his living.

The issue I want to adress in this topic is mid-set coaching. I think its one of the most unfair advantages a player can have, which shouldnt be smiled at but instead getting flat out banned.

The reason why it has such a big influence on the outcome goes beyond the fact that you are actively hinted at your opponents movement flaws, and thus having an initial advantage. It actually constitutes a huge psychological factor hindering the playbablitity of your opponent as it will trigger for him a feeling of being teamed up against which causes a lot of subtile distraction.

It is also one of the most disrespectful things, as the main stage is reserved only for the players. Spectators have their places in the crowd, hence there is absolutely no need for anyone that isnt a participant in the actual set to enter the area of where tournament matches are being played out.

Then there is obviously the issue of having someone point out not only your mistakes but also the ones of your opponent, which must not be the case in a SINGLES event. This whole thing really bugs me as Armada got robbed off his Dreamhack win, costing him a few thousand dollars. If I was in Armadas position I would have definitely called a TO mid-set who would be obligated to send Hungrybox coach away as he was in no way permitted to take part in anyones matches.

If it was for me Hungrybox win should definitely be seen as invalid and should be disqualified retrospectively. This is not even just a new trend, back at Apex 2012, Hungrybox got coached by Seibrik, who made it possible for him to win the first set of Grand Finals. This event should make it clear that we have to establish a strict ruleset in order to ensure a fair environment for everyone. So nobody except the participants and the TOs should be entiteled to enter the main stage so nobody can cause interruptions, preventing unnecessary things like this to happen.


What do you think?

 

[Twinkles]

I agree it's absolutely necessary to define rules regarding coaching and put the issue to rest. I also agree that I think main stage matches should be only between the two competitors, and not two competitors and their coaches. Players can talk with coaches or smash homies or whatever between sets, but once the first match starts, the whole set should be played out between two people IMO.

I absolutely disagree that Hbox's win should be discounted, his winnings revoked, and him DQ'd, because these "rules" we would have were not enforced nor perhaps even properly defined at the time he had this "coach." Armada had an empty chair next to him for anyone who wanted to give him some tips as well.

I think it's fair to note that the way traditional Smash tournaments are run, any enforcement of coaching rules are insanely difficult until around top 8 at a big tournament when there's actually a main stage to play on. So I could see any argument against coaching running into the dilemma that rules enforced on the main stage are not enforced anywhere else, meaning there's a clear disparity between playing off stream and on stream, and luck in determining stream matches could change match outcomes.

 

[ThunderCat]

Isn't mid set coaching already banned?

 

[PepaCorn]

I don't agree. Almost every other sport allows competitors to have coaches.

Also saying Hbox's win should be discounted is ridiculous and it seems more like you just don't like him. It was Armada's choice not to have his own coach. It isn't like only Hbox was allowed to have one in that set. Also from other experiences with coaching, if one player does not have a coach but the other does. That does not immediately grant the person with the coach victory.

If coaching is allowed then it does not bias one person, each contestant in that set has equal opportunity to a coach.
Coaching would be stupid but only in the situation that only one competitor were allowed the option to have a coach.

 

[Dolla Pills]

Honestly I don't see a problem with coaching as long as it's quick and respectful and doesn't happen mid match.

The only thing really against that is that in Melee we value on the fly adaptation and analysis and mental composure, and a coach lightens some of those aspects. But, by no means does this eliminate them from the game, especially if both players are being coached. It's just making a game plan and collecting yourself at the start of a match.

The idea of discrediting Hbox is silly.

 

[CeeLew]

Can someone enlighten me as to why "mid-set coaching" is looked down upon?

I can't help but apply this way of thinking to other sports such as basketball or football where there are time-outs, half-time, and substitutions, all of which are/can be used to make adjustments mid-game. Granted, I understand that the melee sets are much shorter than basketball and football games, but still the concept is the same. (If you would like for me to elaborate on this concept, I will. Just ask.) Honestly, as long as both players have the option of having a coach, coaching mid-set should not be ruled out as long as it does not prolong the overall in-between-game-wait time by too much. Maybe a 30 second to one minute limit for coach/player interaction.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Can someone enlighten me as to why "mid-set coaching" is looked down upon?

Do you mean literally between matches, sets, or during matches?

 

[CeeLew]

Do you mean literally between matches, sets, or during matches?

I mean between games within a set. So in-between the end of one game and the beginning of the other. Now that I think a little bit longer about it, I'm assuming people are having an issue with mid-game coaching rather than mid-set coaching, which would make more sense. To me, when people say "mid-match", I think of match as the entire set, not match as an individual game.

 

[Flippy Flippersen]

The whole argument against coaching is that it reduces the chances of people that don't have coaches (which is by far the majority since at the entirety of dreamhack only hungrybox was shown to have one) if coaches have a significant benefit to players there is no reason to not have a coach however for anyone without a sponsor it is both very hard to get a coach commited to your play and to have said coach be of worthwhile quality.

For the t.o. it would also be hell if more than a handful of people would actually have breaks every single game in the tournament to talk to their coach this would either mean we would have to make tournaments a day longer (making them less accessible for people with less time and more expensive since the venue has to be rented a day longer), increase the amount of setups at tournaments and the size of the venue to have more matches happen at the same time (which again brings more costs for the t.o.), remove handwarmers and keep the coaching to 10 seconds for each game (this is prolly the best tradeoff but is guaranteed to piss of a decent amount of players that want their hands warm which either means they're still gonna handwarmer despite having a rule against it or simply protest against it by not showing up), tournaments lasting longer than normal (which most venues are actually not ok with)

Of course this only applies if the majority of the tournament would have coaches a solution against this would be to have top 8 have coaches and everything before not have coaches (though that also brings conflict not to mention having to deal with getting a coach and getting 9th would feel very unfortunate)

Overall the pro, which would be a player with coach performing better than without would on so many tournaments not be worth the cons. If I personally were hosting anything that isn't an invitational (like the summit) I'd ban coaching if it gets more popular than absolute top players exclusively and still consider banning it if it doesn't take off.

 

[MurphyPrime]

I think between match coaching should be allowed, since in basically any other sport there is coaching during breaks. And it's not like Armada wasn't allowed to have a coach.

You do honestly sound really anit-Hbox, whether intentional or not. Imagine other sports without coaches. It would be silly, cause you would see little adaptation, and as a result, less of a tug and pull game. Fixing mistakes mid match allows for incredibly interesting and close games. Tennis mid match they talk to coaches. Caddys walk the golf course and talk to the player about EVERY shot they make. Commercial breaks allow Managers/coaches to communicate a game plan. It's in every sport, so why not smash? It definitely could get regulated.

Saying Hbox didn't deserve that win is lunacy, you could get the best coach around but if you suck then it doesn't matter. He worked hard and played well, so he should win. Armada worked hard, but didn't play as well, so he doesn't deserve to win. A coach will help fix game plan mistakes, but if your execution is off then the coaching is nearly irrelevant.

 

[trilok]

I don't think it was as much hbox's fault as much as the lack of rules and regulations regarding coaching.
At different times and TOs, usually the rules were either no coaching allowed (as soon as match started till the end of match) or coaching is allowed inbetween games of a set (max 1 min or something). Coaching has almost always been banned during a game.

I dont really have strong feelings for either mid set coaching with a time limit or no coaching should be the standard, but I do think it needs to be incorporated into the tournament rules, otherwise you will have situations where people don't know if coaching is allowed or not, and to what extent. Leffen definitely could have helped if he knew coaching was allowed, like he tweeted, and if there were clear rules, most likely the coaching during a game would not have been allowed by captain crunch. Imo, coaching in the middle of a game should be banned and feels like poor sportsmanship/distracting to the other player, unlike between games which I can understand. No coaching has also some benefits, like allowing the outcome to be more determined by the individual players which generally benefits lesser known players without as many resources. Regardless of what rules are decided on, I hope TOs can clearly state what their rules are for the tournaments.

 

[MurphyPrime]

I'm all for coaching to be regulated, but Hbox shouldn't lose his title for something that hasn't been addressed in the community yet. Seems unfair. But in the future it is something that should be looked into.

 

[Little ShOcKeR]

Wait let me get this straight you mean to tell me that Hungrybox's coach can pick up bad habits and patterns better than the gods who take hours upon hours and weeks upon weeks researching and understanding each other in the span of a week or so? if so YES! lets ban mid set coaching. But as far as I know/according to Hungrybox's interview after his coach was only there to help Hungrybox on Hungrybox stuff. It's like if your in a League of Legends tournament its a Bo3 or Bo5 your coach will talk with you and help you with what you did wrong (or at least mine did). You can't predict everything that your opponent is going to do based on game 1. Because I'm pretty sure Armada thought of what went wrong with his losses and changed something about his play. And It's also not this big surprise that Hungrybox finally won. Hes been getting 2nd place a butt ton this year. That's my thoughts

EDIT: oh and Hungrybox's "Coach" was one of his friends from 5th grade. It's not like he went out and paid someone to do this. I'm also pretty sure that the coach found him. It was just a supportive friend.

 

[Clint Jaguar]

The way I see it, put yourself in the position of the person without a coach. Let's say you're in grand finals and you're playing amazing. You're pulling out all the tricks and you could very easily win this. Now even though your opponent is having difficulty catching on to what you're doing, he has a coach. Somebody who is watching both of you play and is able to pinpoint where you're going right and where your opponent is going wrong. Suddenly your opponent has an advantage. It's kind of like someone giving you extra notes in the middle of the test.

Am I against coaching all together? No but mid-set coaching should be banned. If it's left legal then it will become common place for all players to have coaches and will hinder one of the best aspects of this game: Mind games and metal pressure between players.

 

[Dolla Pills]

The way I see it, put yourself in the position of the person without a coach. Let's say you're in grand finals and you're playing amazing. You're pulling out all the tricks and you could very easily win this. Now even though your opponent is having difficulty catching on to what you're doing, he has a coach. Somebody who is watching both of you play and is able to pinpoint where you're going right and where your opponent is going wrong. Suddenly your opponent has an advantage. It's kind of like someone giving you extra notes in the middle of the test.

Am I against coaching all together? No but mid-set coaching should be banned. If it's left legal then it will become common place for all players to have coaches and will hinder one of the best aspects of this game: Mind games and metal pressure between players.

So the issue here is that you can't pull apart someone's gameplay in under a minute. Not even close. All a coach has time to do mid-set is tell you to focus on a few things and remind you of your game plan, as well as encourage you. They are not going to do super high level analysis on the fly in that short of a time frame.

 

[Archelon]

Someone clearly hates HBox...
I thought that this issue was resolved when they banned mid-game coaching in, like, 2005.
I really do think the future of Melee is with coaching, and that it will result in better matches? And who doesn't want that?

 

[Clint Jaguar]

So the issue here is that you can't pull apart someone's gameplay in under a minute. Not even close. All a coach has time to do mid-set is tell you to focus on a few things and remind you of your game plan, as well as encourage you. They are not going to do super high level analysis on the fly in that short of a time frame.

If the coach really is just there for encouragement and to discuss the game plan, then there's still no reason for mid-set coaching. Look, even if Hbox's coach wasn't giving him tips on how to deal with Armada, what's to stop someone else's coach from doing so in a future set. It doesn't need to be a "super high level analysis" either. A coach could simply notice a habit that the opponent has and by pointing it out, will give the player an unfair advantage. Again, coaching before and after a set is perfectly fine but coaching in between games is where the problem lies.

 

[Acryte]

I don't know if any of you know this, but this is PoundSlap. He was banned for being a forum supertroll and making a million trollish topics typically with the underlying theme of glorifying and fanboying over Armada's greatness or discounting any wins that anyone has ever had over him. This is not new territory.

However, it seems that he has finished some schooling and is able to communicate his ideas with real words and proper grammar, and for that I applaud him. Now he is simply a denizen of smashboards with an opinion backed by real arguments.

Unfortunately those arguments are a bit extreme. Here's the skinny. The tournament didn't outright ban it. However, even if the tourney did ban it... both players allowed it. Gentleman's clause trumps all provided it doesn't have a profound effect on tournament length or organization.

I used to be against coaching, because adaptation is important in this game. Typically your coach isn't a top player, he sees and communicates basic fundamentals that they need to concentrate on. Coaching for any sport is typically fundamentals. Yes, the coach may prepare a gameplan going in, however this isn't football where they're drawing up plays... this game is too fast and has too much action between breaks for that to be an issue. The coach could say something simple like, "He's teching in place a ton and only recovers high so cover those options". That's about what you can expect from a coach. It's useful information, it's easily applicable.

When I look at coaching I see it like I see handwarmers. Could you go into the set without it? Yes. Does it allow for people to establish their rhythm? Yes. Would it be a large advantage for someone to swamp a player and not allow them to get into their rhythm and keep their tech off point for a portion of a match or set? Yes. Does including handwarmers probably give us higher level melee more consistently? Yes.

Let's compare that to coaching. Could you go into the set without it? Yes. Does it allow for players to more quickly adapt to their opponent? Yes. Does that mean that their opponent doesn't have the ability to adapt to them too? No. Does that mean that the gameplay is more dynamic, shifts more, and is probably more 'honest'? Yes. Does it provide us with higher level melee more consistently? Yes.

Do some players need coaches? Probably. Do you know how many sets Mewtwoking used to throw away where he got 'down' during the set and then basically just quit mid match? Would it have been better melee if he at least had someone there to encourage him mid-match? Someone to keep him sharp and focused on winning and not giving up because he simply "can't beat Mang0"? I think so. What a coach does is invaluable, yes. But the onus is still on the player to recognize those situations and opportunities and then implement it.

As for talk about mid level players in tournament. Why not have a coach? Typically the problem with getting better, and the reason why players stagnate is due to either the level of competition locally not being good enough to force you to improve (because they don't take advantage of your weaknesses), or because you play the same as you've always played. The key to improving in the latter instance is typically recording and watching your matches. That's where you can see all the mistakes you're making. Coaching is a similar concept to that except it allows a player to recognize those faults on the spot and try to make adjustments and learn while the other player is still there to practice or fight against. In that light, I think that having coaches not only in tournament but even when playing against training partners is a large and underutilized tool that could help mid-level players to improve more quickly. I would encourage it, and maybe we'll start to see more people on the come-up challenging the gods.

tldr; Choose your coach wisely. Everyone should have one.

 

[-ACE-]

Poundslap has always been a troll while simultaneously bringing up issues (and approaching them in a manner) that are just relevant enough that he doesn't get perma-banned. I don't have a strong stance except for I am against having a top player coach someone throughout the entire set.

 

[Dolla Pills]

Poundslap has always been a troll while simultaneously bringing up issues (and approaching them in a manner) that are just relevant enough that he doesn't get perma-banned. I don't have a strong stance except for I am against having a top player coach someone throughout the entire set.

I heard one proposal that the coach shouldn't be able to enter the tournament, which I think is somewhat logical

 

[Sutekh]

I can certainly understand the advantage a coach can bring to competitive Melee, but I don't necessarily think it should be banned entirely. I kind of draw a comparison between boxing, where the fighter (player) is able to talk strategy for a short time between rounds. I don't agree with coaching while the game is being played, but I think it should be legal for a short time between games. Of course local T.O.s could decide rules for their events individually, but I don't think that would be a bad thing for the scene if it became common at the highest level. I feel like it would only allow better melee to be played overall.

 

[hi im dennis]

If you seriously think Hungrybox only won because of those post-match pep talks then you're ****ing stupid.

 

[-ACE-]

It's not like his coach was PPMD or something. I feel like someone can get the same help from reading an inspirational quote between matches. It probably helped hbox just to have a good friend supporting him so fully. I don't really like the thought of coaching mid-match though. Some players will benefit much more from coaching than others for various reasons, and I don't think that finding a good coach should be one of the skills tested for in tournament. There has to be a limit, and the giving of advice cannot be fully regulated unless you actually plan on silencing the crowd somehow. I think banning coaching mid-match seems reasonable.

 

[wiiqwertyuiop]

I don't really think the point of the coach he had was there for gameplay tips, as much as he was there for mental/emotional support. I think it is comforting to have someone next to you on your side supporting you, when there might be others cheering against you (especially true for someone like HBox).

I actually think, at least for top players, it could make for better games of melee if both players weren't hindered by their mental state. At low levels though it does seem kind of slippery just because it is easier to give gameplay strategies and what not, which might be considered unfair, and also not everyone will be able to have a coach (although you could get anyone to be a coach for you).

 

[Diosama]

Coaching only comes into play at high level where players are sponsored, meaning any of them can have a coach, evening the grounds. It is kinda lame since it consumes time between games, but money is on the line, it's important they get any advantage they can get. Coaching rules do need to be established nonetheless

 

[Archelon]

Coaching only comes into play at high level where players are sponsored, meaning any of them can have a coach, evening the grounds. It is kinda lame since it consumes time between games, but money is on the line, it's important they get any advantage they can get. Coaching rules do need to be established nonetheless

But what do you mean by "rules"? Back in 2005 the rule was set that you can't be coached during a game, and that worked fine for 10 years. Do you think we need more rules surrounding it?

 

[Diosama]

But what do you mean by "rules"? Back in 2005 the rule was set that you can't be coached during a game, and that worked fine for 10 years. Do you think we need more rules surrounding it?

I was not aware of this. Perhaps they should be updated or even restated to remind players then.

 

[Archelon]

I was not aware of this. Perhaps they should be updated or even restated to remind players then.

Well, I'm not sure if it is enforced, but nobody does it, so it doesn't really need to be -_-