|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 14, 2009
|
I was motivated to write about natural laws as I just finished an Eastern philosophy book. I wanted to write down some natural laws as they pertain to wrestling. They do a good job of describing behaviors, so they are physical in nature, but it is the understanding of principles which, allow us to realize and change practices that interfere with progress while maintaining the integrity of what we already do well. Also, central to this perspective is the concept of opponent as teacher or student. Therefore, we are teaching or being taught as we interact and learn what positions afford us in the arena of competition.
Law of Position---Position must always be maintained or improved in order to gain advantage. Improved position is comprised of changed position that results in a realized or unrealized advantage. Maintenance of position requires that there is no significant change of position which results in advantage to opponent. Loss of position concedes change of position resulting in opponent advantage. An opponent may put themselves in bad position which will result in an advantage through maintaining position. A realized advantage is one that is recognized by the athlete. An unrealized advantage is one that is afforded to the athlete by the position, but the athlete is unaware of the affordance. i.e. not knowing what to do in a given situation. When neither wrestler can improve position, a stalemate ensues. If one wrestler realizes position is no longer improveable, he shall default to maintaining position and reliance on subjective opinion of referee to call stalemate.
A dynamic progression describes the continuous sequence of positions that alters as the wrestlers fight to gain an advantage of position. A dynamic progression with scoring describes a sequence of positions that alters as the wrestlers fight for position and results in meeting the criteria set forth by the rules as interpreted by a referee. A loss of position does not necessitate point scoring. I.e. hands are out of position when opponent shoots and consequent deep leg attack, thus a loss of position, but no criteria are met that involve point scoring.
Law of Proper Form---Proper form is the correct technical application at the right time, position, situation and opponent. There is a high probability of execution, if proper form is used. Proper form directly corresponds to skill and conditioning. Greater accrued skill results in higher incidence of proper form. An increase in fatigue results in a compromise of form. Opponents are a key aspect to proper form as some attacks are not warranted due to the nature of the opponent and will likely result in poor form. The situation is relevant as score, time left in a period and area of the mat all play a role in proper application.
Law of Repeat Position---The more repetitions in which we capably engage in a particular position increases our awareness and understanding of what that situation affords and the nuances of that position. The awareness of such affordances is expedited by capable coaching and positional wrestling.
Law of Initiate Action---An initial action must be countered with an opposing force grounded in proper form in order to thwart the action. The wrestler that initiates the action more times in a match will be less likely to be called for stalling.
Law of Proper Timing---There is a small window of opportunity as wrestlers continue through a dynamic progression in which technique may be applied successfully or not. Central to technical implementation is recognizing and acting within that window. Acting outside of the window is to have missed an opportunity that could have been otherwise realized.
Law of Situation---The situation plays an influential role in determining the action one should take. Whether one should engage and try to improve position or maintain position. Central to situation are score, time and place on the mat. Whenever you engage an opponent and try to improve position with intent to score, you take on added risk. If it otherwise makes sense to maintain the margin of score and not take on added risk as it relates to time left in the match and opponent’s strengths, then by all means do so. Maintain. This s a simple risk/reward rule that presupposes an wrestler is equally adept at maintaining position while staying active. I will call this the Jim Scherr and Hrovat rule. i.e. Jim Scherr led the Japanese wrestler in the ’88 Olympic Semifinals 7-0. His corner kept after him telling him to score more. The Japanese wrestler was notable for his trickery and ended up pinning Scherr off his attack. We all watched Andy take that shot at the end which lost him the match against the Cuban.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on November 15, 2009
|
I am going to take some time to read this before responding because I want to formulate something worth reading.
My initial reaction was, "this stuff is great!" Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 15, 2009
|
I really thought there would be more responses to this post, this is by far one of the best things I have read on a forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 15, 2009
|
I JUST <underlined> noticed this. I'm going to print it out and read it all day tomorrow.
Perhaps I'll post further but I doubt it.
The Philosophical Hammer has stricken.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Jim Wittkamp added to this discussion on November 15, 2009
|
I concur. This is one of the best posts in a long time. Great Coaching tool.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Bill Splete added to this discussion on November 15, 2009
|
Rex,
I have read most of your recent posts, and in all honesty it is inspiring. I too will take more time to digest your recent post. You deserve us to try and understand what it means. I have gained alot from your posts on expected emotional feelings as it relates to success, and it is truly spot on. I can remeber not feeling the "right" emotion when going into a big match and thinking I wasn't ready, because I mad a connection with winning and that excitement. This is really a place that I love going to. I have learned alot about myself, my place, and the changes I need to make to be a better coach. Please keep giving us more Rex, It helps us change, evaluate, and understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Thank you for the comments Dan, Lou, Jim, Mark and Bill.
I was uncertain as how this would be received as this a fairly thought intensive subject. It is something that always interested me as I can teach wrestling and always give a reason for something but I wanted to relate it in broader terms. Sometimes in understanding natural laws, they seem so ambiguous or general that a case could be made for them in any given context. It is my hope to be relatively specific and communicate information in a manner that athletes can relate, reflect and meditate, which ultimately helps them improve.
Sometimes life seems like one big meditation on wrestling and how it relates to the world. Everyone on this board can relate, if they have bled for the sport.
Considering this is version 1.0, first draft, I am going to do quite a few redoes. Anyone taking the time to read and offer thought provoking questions is much obliged. With redo in mind, I will add to my existing work;
I would have to make a distinction regarding Law of Position and further declare a Law of Action or rather, Active Engagement, which would be described as actively engaging an opponent pursuant to a defined constructive objective. Of which there would be three types of constructive engagements: active engagement with intent to control position and remain neutral, active engagement with intent to counter score, and active engagement with intent to offensively score. Also, there would need to be classification of inhibited engagement in order to account for all those processes opposite these purpose driven actions. i.e. wrestler does not know how to wrestle from a position or does something seemingly ridiculous or exhibits a loss of presence.
By stating a Law of Active Engagement, a wrestler action’s will depict one of these modalities. If the wrestler is uncertain as to their modality, this law becomes paramount in illustrating the necessity of having a purpose for every action and being responsible for said action. Of interest is the concept of wrestling to win and wrestling not to lose, which are the two most common comments made regarding an athlete’s behavior. By virtue of logic, one must also consider concepts of wrestling not to win and wrestling to lose. But, these two concepts imply that there is no motivation to win which is contrary to constructive engagement.
The Law of Active Engagement can be used to explain and make distinction between these two concepts. At all times, when a wrestler is actively and constructively engaging an opponent, shall it be said that the action reflects wrestling to win. At times, when a wrestler lacks clarity of purpose and/or relative inaction, then it shall be construed as wrestling not to lose. The implication in this scenario is that the wrestler is not fully engaged with constructive purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
How does the Law of Situation work with the 2nd portion (or part B of) the Law of Active Engagement?
In the instance of Jin Scherr, had he applied the Law of Situation, he would have been appearing to wrestle not to lose (Part B of the Law of Active Engagement), when in fact, he was realizing the situation and, thus, wrestling to win the match...Or was he wrestling to not lose the lead, and thus the match???
Just wondering how the two Laws work together...
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Mark, your question reminds me of a talk that Dan Gable gave. Coach Gable said one of his most disappointing wins was a Gold Metal win in the Olympics because after gain a lead he then wrestled not to lose but won the match know he could have scored more, he also noted that some of the matches he lost where he favorite because he wrestled beginning to end.
Now one can also ask the question would Scherr, Horvat or Gable been in the big matches had they not always continue to wrestle instead of holding a lead. And given Dan Gable's comments does a true wrestler who loves this sport stop wrestling for the sake of a win?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Lou, while I agree 100% with you concerning wrestling to wrestle rather than wrestling to win or lose, I was just wonder how it all jived with the Laws.
Is there a heirarchy? The main thrust of this, is this is GREAT stuff. If I am going to help my kids by using this stuff, I had better understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Mark-
Active engagement with intent to remain neutral. i.e handfighting, snapdowns, collar wrist ties, moving forward while maintaining position. The idea is to minimize risk in the situation while still engaging in the battle. What will transpire is the opponent will be forced to take on the risk and at which point the wrestler should only engage so far as proper form allows. Hrovat did a nice reshot at the end against the Cuban but went to his knees and was consequently scored upon. He therefore should have actively engaged more conservatively by maintaining better position and going for a front headlock or a shot that did not require going to one's knees.
Lou-
Gable's win was proper form and although it may have been unsatisfying, it was the right thing to do. As I recall, Gable wrestled with a torn cartilage in his knee. Let's say he increases his risk and does more in the way of penetration and his knee locks on him and he is severely compromised which affects his ability and consequently he does not win an Olympic title. Can you imagine Gable being revered as the best ever without a '72 Olympic title---not so much.
I would have to ask questions of Gable's experience to interpret it. It is a matter of perspective. Wrestling is a skilled fight. It sounds like he distinguishes wrestling to win and wrestling not to lose differently than myself. I distinguish another aspect of fighting to keep the battle neutral whereas it sounds like he only distinguishes between wrestling to score and wrestling to not get scored upon.
This is typical of guys from that era who were use to FILA rules of offense only wrestling. Counter and neutral wrestling became more prominent as rules were changed and are an important part of successful repertoire of skills.
At the end of the season after all the hard work has been done. Having a title or championship is extremely important. It is how one is recognized or associated. The only way to do that is by having winning at or near the top of one's hierarchy of needs. However, focusing on winning is not the way to realize this goal but rather focusing on the process that affords winning.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Cleared up. Thanks.
Very insightful.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Grant McCormick added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Good stuff Rex,
on the mat---these are the things that some inherently understand but cannot wrap their heads around; some only academically understand; some kids never understand; and the best understand both consciously and sub-consciously.
It reminded me of a quote that I have always associated with wrestling:
"Nothing is more difficult than the art of maneuvering for advantageous positions. "
~Sun-Tzu The Art of War
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Law of Position---cont. If an athlete loses position, then immediate constructive action must be taken in order to regain position.( i.e. building a base, getting hand control), any non constructive action shall be deemed inappropriate and must be corrected going forward (laying there, hitting the mat, lack of a purposeful and skilled action)
Positions are opponent dependent. Meaning that opponents are stronger in some positions than others and vary to the individual. To wrestle to your opponents strengths is not proper form as you are affording a significant advantage to the opponent. It is rational and intelligent to remain significantly grounded in the things you do well and utilize prevention as a means of stifling your opponents productivity.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Natural Laws and Wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on November 16, 2009
|
Grant-
Thanks.
Yes, this is for no less than the advanced level wrestler that has a head on his shoulders and is willing to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
