Teaching people how to avoid the HO...which to me is pretty much the same as not going for the HO... will promote better fights because people will learn to fight better.
I agree, to a point...
What I all-to-often see though, from people who are "against" HOing, is what I consider "sloppy", reckless, too-close, bad position merges that
should get them killed via HO, in an effort to get a better position 2 seconds later. "Safety" or "immunity" from HO's seems to lead to a sense of right or wrong, which IMO, makes the fights ridiculously artificial.
They can get away with those merges, if their opponent declines the shot opportunity, out of some sort of what, honor? But, these are the same guys who are vocal about calling people names because they take the shot... Right off, if someone complains about an HO, I suspect they have a flawed merge. If they didn't, the HO wouldn't be a factor. They wouldn't mind if someone took that shot...
And, again, holding off on that shot IMO leads to a waste of a fight (depending on the motive). Who cares about the rest of the fight, if it's based on a bogus start? If the motive is "honor" or "make the fight last" or some such, I have no respect for that. If the motive is one of self-preservation, passing on the HO because it may lead to damage, and passing because it increases your chances of survival, I'm all for it.
And yes, even though I never consider the HO a "good" option, it very well may be the "best" option, or even the "only" option. To lose the fight because you passed a shot opportunity because it isn't "special" enough is wasting my time. I'd honestly rather have you kill me with an HO, than die because you chose not to shoot. Beating you in that situation holds no appeal. You're
letting me win, so why would I
want to win?
A guns-cold initial merge is bogus, IMO,
even though I'll never open with an HO. IMO, if a fight opens guns-cold, it's bogus, and I have no interest in it, or its outcome. It's like saying "OK, new rule- no going for the QB on the first down". Wanna duel? Lets duel! None of this sissy, pansy, no face-shooting rule stuff. I have guns, look out! Wanna have a good fight? Earn it. Don't expect a free pass.
When I work with people, I never advocate going for an HO shot. I also
never ask them to avoid it. When we work on merges, they'll often ask "Guns cold on the first merge?" And I'll always answer "LOL, no! If you have a shot, and want to take it, go for it!" "If you think you can hit me, you'd better try! It's the whole point of aerial combat".
"Learn how to HO really good"? Why not? It's as valid a tactic as any... It's a very simple tactic, that's simple to avoid/defeat, so I wouldn't say it's all anyone would want to learn, but why not? It's no less valid tactic-wise than a BRD, or immel, or scissors, or whatever. They're all designed to put lead on target.
Teaching people not to HO can best be done by letting them HO. It's a low-percentage tactic. They'll die as a result, practically every time they try it against a competent pilot. By dying repeatedly, they'll probably desire to learn a better tactic. Right there, HOing is leading to better fights... But for the right reasons. Not from some sort of flawed sense of "honor", or because they want longer fights (which are the wrong reasons to avoid the HO) but because they want to fly/kill more efficiently (which is the right reason to avoid the HO).
And "teaching them not to HO" is a poor choice of words, IMO. I don't want to teach them NOT to do it, I want to teach them a better option.
