I just call him Ash because i only see Ash when i look at the guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though he looks nothing like Ash, nor does Ash have Squirtle or Ivysaur. Do you call Ike Roy also?- Gargomon251 22:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The last I heard Ash does have a Squirtle. But, not with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by God180 (talkcontribs) 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, his name is Red! Any Pokmon fan that is geeky enough to actually reserch the offical names of the RPG Charecters would know that! He is based on The Fire red/Leaf Green version Red. Also, Red IS NOT Ash and likwise with Blue and Gary.--User:Mudkipz 13:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't a pokemon fan at the time of Red or Blue so i just call him pokemon trainer. Unless i'm fighting him then i just refer to the pokemon he's using at the time. At one point Ash did have a squirtle and a charizard but he never had them at the same time and he never had an ivysaur. Speaking of which wonder why they picked those three pokemon. Carbonkirby 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason why he has those 3 pokemon is because Squirtle is the 1st form(before evolution), Ivysaur is the 2nd form(after evolution), and Charizard is the 3rd form(after 1rst evolution). 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question in any way. I'm asking out of all the hundreds of pokemon out of all the choices why they chose those 3 first generation pokemon only. Carbonkirby 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they're easily recognizable franchise classics? I dunno...They're all very different in play style while sharing a common theme... - Gargomon251 23:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Pokémon Trainer, canonically named Red, is the only character in the Super Smash Bros. series to date who appears as both a main protagonist and final boss in his own universe.
  • This is not true When Mario first apeared in Donkey Kong he was the protagonist. But In DK jr he wasthe final boss.--Ouroborosi 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed something about the pictures of May and Brendan. They have two colors, one for R/S and one for Emerald. The pictures in the article show a R/S version of them- should we incluse both? Raiespio (talk) 03:51, December 28, 2009 (UTC)


Hey! I recently started playing the very first pokemon game, pokemon red. You know how there's a lot of controversy about whether he's ash or not? Well here's the answer: He is. And he's also red. You see, like many RPGs at the time, in Pokemon Red, you can name your character any one of a group of given names. One of the names is Red, and another is Ash. Also, at the begining, you can choose your first pokemon from a group of three. Guess what they are: Squirtle, Bulbasaur, and Charamander. There. I hope I have settled the controversy around this guy. 01:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not good enough proof. As far as we know, the option "Ash" as a name could be a reference to Ash from the TV show (since we all know kids would go nuts to name their guy the same as the famous guy without having to know how to spell it). And just because PT fights with the Kanto starters doesn't mean one of them is his starter (although it's likely) - he could have traded for them, for example. Toomai Glittershine Toomai eXemplary Logic 01:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
You probably don't understand what I was trying to say. Here's what I meant:
  1. It's OK to call the PK trainer "Ash", as he is.
  2. I also was simply explaining the reason why those three pokemon were chosen.
Is the Red in FireRed classified as Ash? That is the Red this Pokemon Trainer is based off of, my friend! By now, all who play Nintendo's games should know that the video games never connect with the Anime. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:41, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I have played the original Pokemon Red. One of the possible names is ash. Ash and this guy are the same person. Ash isn't "based off" Red, he is red. It's like saying whether the Mario in the TV shows is the same mario as the one in the games. 03:45, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
See here. According to Bulbapedia (and let's face it, they're the thing on this subject), Red and Ash are related but not identical. Like having two cars of the same make - they originally came fom the same place, but their seperate experiences differentiated them. Toomai Glittershine Toomai The Stats Guy 03:51, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well, for one, Bulbapedia's information can't be used to clarify information here. Secondly, Ash being a possible name isn't enough proof, and Red just resembling Ash isn't either. To be frank, you'd need the exact quote from Pokemon's executives that "Ash is Red", heh heh heh. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:55, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
To Blue Ninjakoopa 03:56, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Ash isn't Red, he's BASED OFF Red. And the name "Ash" ISN'T canonical to the games, as he was NEVER called that in them.
First of all sign your posts using ~~~~ Second, this discussion is months old. Doctor Pain 99 (CTE) Dp99 03:28, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, Red and Ash are different characters. Red doesn't speak. Ash blabs out heaps of stuff. Ash is the main protagonist of the main Anime. Red had his own anime special, proving that he is not Ash. Red looks visually different to Ash. And according to Bulbapedia, Ash was based off of the player character in the first Pokemon games, Red. Remember, in the Pokemon Canon, Red isn't Ash. I also think that while Pokemon Trainer is based on Red, he's also a completely different character. Could we just all settle that Pokemon Trainer isn't Ash or Red, but a trainer made specifically for Brawl? Shaystorm (talk) 00:14, April 9, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.