RE:Should Coaching Be Banned in the FGC?


My response to : Should Coaching Be Banned in the FGC?

Be it during a match or in between sets, coaching is cheating because a 2df game in its essence is a mind game, and will never be a physical challenge[1].
You definitely have things like execution and muscle memory as physical obstacles to overcome, but that’s for novice players only. You should already be past those issues to even consider yourself a mediocre/casual player. So What’s left is purely a technical, psychological battle in which mind games decide the outcome.

Patience, guessing, reading, conditioning, baiting, concealing, holding on your ace, adapting, memory, reflexes[2], taking risks, awareness, resources monitoring, stress management, framedata/hitboxes/bugs knowledge, knowing your character, knowing your opponent’s character, playing ignorance, playing the victim, playing low, keeping background tabs on your opponents, studying tapes of yourself, approaching with the right mindset, maintaining that mindset, getting over bad habits, thick skin, luck, modesty, grace, faith…etc, none of that stuff is physical now is it?

I see that it’s clear as day that two people combining their minds’ power against one person is unfair in many levels. That same person is now feeling an additional pressure when they realize that they have to beat two and a half persons[3].

And then there is the question, who is coaching the coach?

[1] Of course unless you have an illness or a disability preventing you from playing normally.
[2] One could argue that this is physical and can be trained as, say, execution. But since it happens mostly in the mind and is extremely hard to obtain when your mind is weak, I’ll keep it in the psychological list.
[3] Because the coach has far less strain on him that he can evaluate stuff better than an engaged person.


What the fuck are you talking about?


Asking specific questions makes your life easier. I can’t answer you because I don’t know “what the fuck are you talking about?”

The presence of a coach, alone, creates more room for metagames and can have an effect on the other guy even if the coach doesn’t interfere. Just the fact that there’s a possibility for a certain someone to help your opponent makes you think about other stuff and can distract you from the game or push you to commit mistakes.


Do you compete?


Well they aren’t coaching in the middle of a match, so I don’t see the harm in it. The coach is probably not going to have much to say unless his man is losing anyway, and I see no problem with giving some advice to a player in a stressful situation who might need it.

The only thing I’m against is using coaching to disrupt the flow of the match or break the other player’s concentration. But if both players are sitting away from each other like they did at Capcup, then it’s not a big deal.


Back in the day, I did.

My point is coaching=cheating since fighting games are closer to a chess match than they are to boxing.

Someone commented this on that vid :
“A few years ago, I overheard a commentator saying that I needed to stop jumping. So I stopped jumping and immediately did better. I lost the set but took a match and almost took the second against who I feel was a far better opponent. Not really coaching per se, but that little piece of inadvertent advice was sooooooooo helpful.”


Is only one person still holding the stick/pad? If your answer is yes. Then you’re only fighting one person. It’s knowledge and skill vs knowledge and skill. If you can be that damn good as a player you would hang whether it’s against one person with a coach or one person on their own.

Was helpful advice and was something the player could have figured out on their own had they thought about it. Ultimately didn’t mean shit because the other player was still better anyways which just proves my point.


Theoretically it is cheating but in practice it’s probably a big “who cares”


Fighting games are nothing like chess, stop it.


“Pick your shit!”
-Fighting game coaching 101


Not true everytime. I’ll use an extreme example to elaborate.
2 Newbies playing each other with one of them incorrectly abusing the sweep. If you interfere and tell him “ditch the sweep”, no matter what happens next, it’s a completely different outcome.
Now use the laws of proportionality and apply the above example on high level play.

Well he did not figure that on his own. Had it not been for that extra bit of outside info, the challenge would’ve remained the same for the other guy. But it didn’t, and that’s crucial. Heck the outcome was clearly different; instead of an insulting free 0-2, it’s a 1-2 loss with the last game being close. I can’t help but imagine the high chances of it ending differently in a ft3, or yet, a ft10 set.

People seem to project everything on Street Fighter and high level play.
What about other games? What about the average Joe?


But fighting games aren’t chess, so how chess handles coaching is irrelevant.


You can coach all you want. It still is a 1v1 game. Last I checked, you can’t give another player your controller in order for them to beat you. In other words, coaching doesn’t affect anything. I’ll even let your coach coach you during a game against me. You’ll still lose…


Lol People on denial here, not even trying to formulate an argument. More or less just opinions.

At least I got real cases from real tournaments : Julio Vs PR Balrog.

PR Balrog came from losers. He won all 6 rounds straight to reset the bracket. While he was feeling himself and enjoying his performance, Julio looked like he was going to piss in his pants. He was that shattered! Julio then made a 10sec phone call, and the rest is history. He easily won 5 constitutive rounds before losing one round, which btw was close, and wining the 6th and last one closing the tournament. the match had flipped 180° to Julio’s favor even though PR had all the momentum after the reset.


I’m not saying coaching can’t change the outcome of a match, I’m saying I’m okay with that. So you can keep giving examples where coaching changed the outcome all day and it won’t make a difference.

I mean, to me this is really an issue for the highest level players to decide upon. They are the ones with a lot of money on the line.


First example:
Good. The newbies are learning how to get better. Your example is very extreme to he point that it’s irrelevant. Either way it’s not unfair. Telling someone to stop sweeping or jumping is just pointing out the obvious. If those kinds of people are in a tournament and yet still need to be told those things then they probably have zero chance of making it far anyways. So of not in a tournament then they’re playing casually where it’s a learning environment.

Second example:
So? The better player still won,right? You don’t know how a longer set would turn out. But it would be safe to assume the better player would win every time. Is it still cheating if someone gets sent to losers only to face the same person again later on in grand finals, but between those matches they studied the match up and player online as well as getting coached by other people and then they go on to beat that same person that beat them before and win the tournament? No it’s not cheating. And there’s no difference between it being between matches and between sets. As far as I’m concerned, the victor earns the win no matter what. The better player wins. The ability to adapt is what matters.


You can deny examples where coaching changed the outcome all day and it won’t make a difference. !!!

Sounds like you’re starting to acknowledge it’s a cheat. I don’t have a problem if you’re okay with the idea knowing its implications. But to claim that it’s not in any way, shape, or form a cheat, then we have a problem.

It’s extreme, but not irrelevant. How is it irrelevant? is it because it’s a counter example to what you’ve said? or is it just because?
What you called “obvious” is really really subjective. What’s clear to someone might not be to someone else.
Also, that example didn’t mention anything about a being in a tournament or being under any kind of pressure. You just like to assume that. Just two people playing each other. What could happen between those two could still happen to any pro players but in a much lesser degree that it might not be noticeable.

You also don’t know how that would turn out. Sure it’s safe to assume, but no one really knows. And that doesn’t change the fact that it went from an insulting, free 0-2 loss to a satisfying 1-2 performance thanks to an overheard tip.

Again you assume tournament settings, you assume it’s double elimination (ever heard of single elimination? or Round Robin, where you play someone just once?), you assume there’s internet connection available, you assume players have all the time they need to do research between their calls (if you lose your winners finals, you have 30sec or something. Barely time to take a deep breath).
Anyway, if they do it before/after their matches/sets, i.e. the whole period when they’re not engaged with the opponent in an official match, then okay by me, take advantage of whatever. But during an official match, they’ve got to do it alone, adapting and everything.

Still waiting for that solid argument.


I haven’t denied any examples of that. I even said that I’m not denying that.

I don’t believe it is a cheat, just like I don’t think reviewing notes on a player or a matchup is a cheat, or popping off and breaking the other player’s focus is a cheat.

If the community has reached some sort of agreement and allowed it in tournaments, then it can’t be a cheating. A cheat is something that is against the rules.


It’s not cheating because its not against the rules. Hardly the only games with coaching in them.

Until you can convince someone it should be against the rules it’s not cheating.


Did this nigga really just create a graph?