|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Tommy Rowlands at Olympic Team Trials
Josh Lowe added to this discussion on June 16, 2008
|
I agree with those statements made here that the FILA rules are clear and relatively reasonable. If you don't score in the two minute period, you place it in the hands of the flip/disk. FILA wants to stimulate scoring within each of the intervaled periods - further emphasized by the rewards for "big" moves and for scoring "last".
In the case of Rowlands v Mocco, both wrestlers have shown the ability to score often against opponents other than each other. Just by styles clashing, seeing each other many a time, etc - their matches grind to a halt. It happened on this occasion that Mocco took two of three.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Tommy Rowlands at Olympic Team Trials
Joe Caprino added to this discussion on June 17, 2008
|
Bob,
The reason the winner of the coin flip takes the leg 100% of the time is because they MUST take the leg, there is no choice in the matter. Originally, I believe there was a choice, now there is not.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Tommy Rowlands at Olympic Team Trials
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on June 17, 2008
|
ok Joe, thanks for the update, hard to keep track of all of FILA's rule changes. ----but i will say when there was choice, the disk flip winner always chose the leg clinch.
look at it this way:
would fans & coaches stand for it if in Ohio high school matches the disk was flipped before BOTH the 2nd & 3rd periods to decide who gets choice ?? Resulting in one wrestler often getting choice of up or down or neutral in BOTH the 2nd & 3rd periods. Unfair and of course neither fans nor coaches would stand for such a rule
, in fact no one would EVER propose such a rule.
i preferred the one 5 minute period, with the winner in regulation having at least 3 points scored otherwise it went into OT. That encouraged scoring.
Plus its hard to hide for 5 minutes straight.
if FILA is trying to encourage scoring they aren't having any success with this current set of rules, i see alot of leg clinches and alot of 1 to 0 scores in a period.
i guess that means
still more rules changes
coming soon ?
FILA should look to the rules of 30 years ago,
when Russ Hellickson took silver in Olympic freestyle ---- in his gold medal match, Russ lost something like 18 or 19 to 11, yes that was the gold medal score in Montreal 1976 !!!!
i cant remember, some old timer tell us why scoring was so much higher in the 1970's freestyle world ???
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Tommy Rowlands at Olympic Team Trials
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on June 17, 2008
|
|
Quote:
|
|
"
The Rules of Engagement
Randy Lewis - Inside Texas Wrestling
2004
In no other sport do the rules change as often and drastically as they do in international wrestling. Football, baseball, golf, track and field, soccer, boxing, and almost every other sport are consistent with their rules, year-in and year-out. They may make few changes, tweak some minor rules every now and then, mostly with the intent to increase scoring and fan interest.
College wrestling’s rules have stayed pretty much the same over the last thirty years, with the biggest changes being the technical fall, and the manner in which overtime matches are decided. Takedowns are still two points, near falls are still two or three points and the escape is one point.
FILA, the International Governing Body for wrestling, however, has made numerous rule changes over the last twenty-five years that have drastically changed the nature of our sport. Recently, these changes have made the sport dull and boring and have taken away the true combativeness and physicality of wrestling as it was meant to be. Can you say clinch?
Having been around freestyle wrestling at a world-class level since 1977, I have witnessed many of these changes, and I believe most of them have hurt our great sport. I have not followed Greco-Roman wrestling closely, so when I refer to the rules for the rest of this article, I will be talking about freestyle only. I came on the scene in freestyle wrestling in 1977 when I won the Espoir World Championships. So, I will start with the rules since then.
With this article I’ll discuss the rules and changes that FILA has made over the years and my thoughts on how they affected wrestling. Before I do that, however, let me tell you what I feel wrestling should be.
Wrestling should be a test of character. It should be about strength, technique, speed, conditioning and will. Wrestlers should be required to wrestle hard all the time, and to attack and score points the whole match, even while ahead.
The goal in wrestling should be to pin your opponent, just like the goal in boxing is the knockout. Like boxing, wrestling is a one-on-one battle to find out who is THE MAN. Fans in boxing expect the fighters to throw punches the whole fight. Boxers usually hold up to that standard. Those that don’t fight exciting fights, don’t make the big money. In wrestling, the rules have changed so much, that taking risks to score points, especially with the lead, is just not worth it anymore.
There was a time when it was. That was then. This is now. This is not wow.
From 1977 until 1980, I believe the rules were at their best. Matches were nine minutes long, with three 3-minute periods. There were no technical falls. Points were awarded for stalling, with the first caution being a warning, the 2nd and 3rd were penalized a point, the 4th caution was two points, and the 5th caution ended the match. There were two points for exposure, and if you held you opponent on his back for 5 seconds you were awarded an additional point.
The officials did not let you bury your head or back up at all. The fall was the objective. Wrestlers were encouraged by the rules to work for the fall. During this era, throws in freestyle were much more common than today. Even with a lead, the officials made you continue to attack, either by shooting or attempting upper body throws.
In a 9-minute match, with points awarded for passivity, you could afford to get behind and still win. Strength, conditioning, and technique were all important. Being able to go hard for nine minutes was important, and you had to be able to continue to score throughout the match. The scoring was incredibly high between the best wrestlers in the world, especially when compared to the scoring in the late eighties and early nineties.
In 1979, Andre Metzger wrestled two defending Olympic champions at the world championships in San Diego. He hammered Ying Yang from Korea 19-15, and lost 13-9 to Vladimer Yumin from the Soviet Union. Later, there were two defending Olympic champs going at it as Yumin won 27-3. Russ Hellickson lost the gold medal match 13-12 at the same meet.
In the world championships in 1978, as a 19-year old freshman, I lost a match by fall with one second left in the match. I was getting pounded 30-16 at the time. Matches like that were common, because of the rules and the way they were applied. Tournaments were round-robin with bad marks, which were okay except they did not produce a championship match, which I believe is vital for wrestling to keep its fans interested in what’s going on.
Weigh-ins are at scratch weight. You made weight every morning, two hours before competition started. Having to make weight daily put an emphasis on conditioning and mental toughness. However, as the rules are now, I like having only one weigh-in the night before competition.
During these years, the officials did not give enough time on top to attempt more than one turn. Since a leg lace took too long to lock up, it was rarely used. Gut wrenches were not used very much either, because unless you hit a high bridge, they were scored two and two. There was too much risk and too little reward.
In 1981, all that changed. Starting that year, the matches were shortened to six minutes. Wrestlers were put down in par terre instead of penalized points for passivity. And, points were awarded for going off the mat under attack. At the time, being put down for passivity instead of being penalized a point was a good idea.
It worked for a while. Most of the best wrestlers became good enough on top and could turn their opponents. By the year 2000, wrestlers had worked on par terre so much that it was becoming increasingly difficult to turn a good wrestler. When a good wrestler had the lead, he could stall as much as he wanted to if he was good at defense.
The change to six minutes was intended to increase the action, but it is my belief that the opposite occurred. With the six-minute matches, and with no points awarded for stalling, good wrestlers were no longer forced to attack and to continue to try and score points.
Whoever scored first had a much bigger advantage than under the old rules, and a good wrestler with the lead would no longer take any risk attempting to score. In the eighties, the officials let the wrestlers keep a lower stance with their head down in a better defensive stance, without calling passivity.
Par terre wrestling became much more important. Technical falls were almost all because of turns on the mat, with gut wrenches and leg laces becoming common between mismatches. But the best against the best was often decided with one turn, leading to many matches won by scores of one or two to zero.
Wrestlers could not afford to make one mistake. In the years from 1989-1992, the rules were at their absolute worst. There was absolutely no penalty for passivity, no points were awarded for it, and you were not put down in par terre for passivity.
Scoring hit an all-time low. At the world team final trials once, five straight matches in the finals were 1-0. Many of these points scored were on fleeing the mat calls, which became very important in the eighties. Two good wrestlers would just maintain position, waiting for the other wrestler to make a mistake. Eventually, one of them would attempt a shot on the edge and push his opponent out of bounds. These calls were totally up to the discretion of the officials. If they liked you it was a point if they didn’t they would not award you the point.
This is a rule that started in the eighties and continues today. If a wrestler turns and dives out of bounds to avoid a takedown, he should be penalized a point and a caution. However, a wrestler should not be awarded a point and a caution for pushing a wrestler out of bounds instead of trying to finish the shot. To me, the officials are awarding a point for almost scoring on someone out of bounds.
This is like if football rules say that if you step out of bounds you just need to touch the ball to get credit for a reception. It would be like in basketball if you step out of bounds and throw the shot at the basket it counts as a basket if it just hits the rim.
Because of the rule changes that FILA continued to make, scoring in the eighties became very difficult, with many of the points between the best wrestlers coming on arbitrary fleeing the mat calls.
These calls were so inconsistent that the officials were deciding who wins, instead of the wrestlers. Under the old rules if you lost a 13-12 match, you may have a bad call go against you, but you had the opportunity to score enough to offset the call. In the late eighties and early nineties, one point on a shoddy call could be all that was scored in the whole match.
I push you out, they don’t score it. You push me out, they score it. This happened often. After 1992, they changed the rule so that a wrestler needed to score three points in regulation to win the match. If no wrestler scored three, it would go to a three-minute overtime.
This did not increase the action, if a wrestler scored one or two points in regulation, then both wrestlers usually shut down, with the wrestler trailing not wanting to risk giving up that critical 3rd point in regulation. This meant that only the boring matches with no scoring went eight or nine minutes.
If you like watching paint dry, we’ll paint another wall and you can watch it dry for three more minutes. By the late nineties, most good wrestlers had spent a considerable amount of time working on the bottom in the par terre position. With the rules penalizing risk on the feet, and with such good defense in par terre, scoring points was becoming more and more difficult.
At this point FILA decided to introduce a whole new element to wrestling, the clinch. Good golly, miss molly. Wrestlers had spent the last 20 years learning how to maintain good position and not take risk, and now all of a sudden they were put in a high-risk situation that they had not experienced.
It seems nobody knew what to do in the clinch. The wrestlers didn’t know how to lock, and they didn’t know how to throw. The officials didn’t know how to make them lock correctly, either. Many world teams and world championships were decided in the clinch, either by the wrestlers in the clinch, or by the officials penalizing one wrestler. Just ask Brandon Slay.
The confusion and chaos caused by the clinch and the number of matches won and lost in the clinch was unbelievable. It seems nobody liked the clinch, and with good reason. It sucked. Big-time.
I believe that most great wrestlers want to compete aggressively. They want to score points, and they want to take risks and wrestle hard the whole match. However, first and foremost, they want to win. This is every wrestler’s top priority. Competitors will adapt their style, technique and strategy to whatever the rules dictate to give them the best chance to win.
If that means taking no risk and winning 1-0 on a push out-of-bounds, they will do it. If it means winning 14-13 in a wild match with a lot of shots and throws and constant attacking, they will do it.
I believe the rules of engagement for freestyle wrestling in the late 70’s were very good for taking risk and wrestling aggressively throughout the whole match. From the mid 80’s through 2004, taking risks has not paid off, wrestling without risk and making no mistakes has become the norm. One of the most aggressive college wrestlers of all time, Cael Sanderson, had to tone down his attacking style to win a gold medal.
If he wrestled in the 70’s his finals match probably would have been 17-8 instead of 3-1. Likewise, some of those matchups in the 70’s that were 19-15 would probably be 3-2, and decided in the clinch if they were wrestled today.
In the late 70’s, with 9-minute matches, strength, conditioning, heart, aggressiveness, and technique were all at a premium. In the last 15 years, strength, technique and defense have been at a premium. I’m old school, and I believe conditioning and aggressiveness should be rewarded, not penalized.
Today’s wrestlers have had to wrestle under ever changing rules that have not done them justice. Matches that were too short, with too much emphasis on maintaining position have hurt our sport, both for the wrestlers and for the spectators.
Once again FILA has made major rule changes this year, and while the verdict is not in yet, judging by their past results I doubt these new rules will last very long before their next overhaul.
In summary, FILA should look at the rules of engagement, during the late 70’s when scoring and action was at an all time high. Today’s wrestlers would love to wrestle under those rules, where both wrestlers attacked for nine minutes to figure out who is THE MAN, instead of a 1-0 match won by a pushout or a clinch. Wrestlers will adapt to the rules to give themselves the best chance to win, so make the rules the way they were, when your best chance to win was to be in great shape and to attack and score the whole match.
Do it before freestyle wrestling loses its fans. That day is coming."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: Tommy Rowlands at Olympic Team Trials
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on June 17, 2008
|
superb article says it all--- one mistake though, Freestyle has ALREADY lost its fans in America from the number of "50 yard line" seats i saw empty at the Trials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
