|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
Was Andy leading 1-0? Then he got one more point for a takedown to go up 2-0 with seconds left, before he was exposed for 3 points -- is that how it went?
What about the crazy 3 point exposure Mocco gave up in the match that knocked him out? The Iranian did nothing in that sequence but got a 3 point gift -- in fact the American coaches thought Mocco who initiated the action had scored at least one -- but then Mocco inexplicably cartwheeled across his own back to give up 3. How bizarre. The Iranian was just laying there, really almost on his back, and all of a sudden he gets a 3 to 0 boost.
If U.S. colleges and high schools went to freestyle only, there would be no wrestling in this country, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
Not saying we should switch to freestyle, but, if we did, the sport would be fine. In a few years, it would be as if we'd always been doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
Hank, nope, I don't think so --
I see more freestyle than most people, and I talk to others especially in Fargo who have to follow it because they are wrestling writers or recruiters or fathers -- and most I talk to hate freestyle,
the constant scoring controversies are one big reason, the constant rules changes are another reason.
The
nonsensical coin flip leg clinch rule infuriates fans
but we are stuck with it until the next change comes from the wrestling gods in Switzerland or France.
Most people seem to prefer folkstyle, I think because it can be followed easier with the naked eye without contant "confirmation" by 2 mat judges -- and when a guy scores in folkstyle he usually deserves it and fans can see it for themelves without any "confirmation" or video review interruptions.
"Control" is a big reason fans like folkstyle, to score you need "control" which you don't have to have in freestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
I really don't think we'd utilize FILA rules completely. I'm sure there'd be some tweaks.
As to controversy, the stalling call remains King. I've seen more kids lose matches because the ref got itchy than freestyle guys due to scoring interpretations. Other folkstyle anomalies: riding time (should be called stalling time), giving a point for an accidental full nelson, illegal leg scissors, etc. Stupid stuff. And our current overtime system is rather odd.
Folkstyle is every bit as screwed up as freestyle. We're just used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Tony Bradberry added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
Why not change, not remove, folkstyle to mirror freestyle a little more. Score it like freestyle: 1 point for a takedown, 0 for an escape, 3 for a feet-to-back takedown, 5 for a big throw, and 2 for a turn plus 1 for holding the opponent down. We should get rid of top, bottom, and riding time, because let's face it, it's boring most the time. We shouldn't adopt the push-out rule, because it allows for less wrestlers to stay in matches. We should make matches one six-minute period, with tie-breakers being the old clinch rules.
I think these rule changes would allow us to move more toward freestyle, but still allow us to leave some of the annoying parts of it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"As to controversy, the stalling call remains King."
|
I agree BUT it depends. It doesn't have to be that way -- at NCAAs they rarely call stalling -- at the Ironman they don't often call stalling, refs have adapted to the level of wrestling there, they let the kids decide.
Elsewhere maybe the refs jump the gun too much.
Besides, the freestyle version of the stalling call was used until a few years ago, putting a wrestler down in par terre -- that was randomly applied and cost guys lots of matches.
After one minute of no scoring there was an unwritten rule, an official told me, one guy was put down in par terre. It could be either wrestler. So freestyle has played that game, too.
And freestyle still plays that game although the rules changed a few years ago, no one gets put down in par terre anymore.
Now the freestyle version of the "stalling" call is the (UGH!) coin flip leg clinch, the most despised rule on the planet -- and there is in fact alot of stalling in freestyle.
That's the game now, score one point and go back to the middle and handfight/stall until the period is over. Thats why there are tons of 1-0, 1-1 scores in freestyle. Boring.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
Tony: I agree with you. You've stated before your preference for freestyle and Greco-Roman. I understand why.
Bob: The leg clinch is flawed but no worse than stalling. At least the action still decides the outcome in the leg clinch. As to your remarks about stalling not called as often at NCAA's or Ironman -- it's still called.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"I really don't think we'd utilize FILA rules completely. I'm sure there'd be some tweaks.
As to controversy, the stalling call remains King. I've seen more kids lose matches because the ref got itchy than freestyle guys due to scoring interpretations. Other folkstyle anomalies: riding time (should be called stalling time), giving a point for an accidental full nelson, illegal leg scissors, etc. Stupid stuff. And our current overtime system is rather odd.
Folkstyle is every bit as screwed up as freestyle. We're just used to it."
|
Hank:
You hit the nail on the head! Both current styles are boring and reward stalling. I agree with Bob that the new freestyle is disgusting to watch, but I disagree with his folkstyle comment, because folkstyle is just as boring. We need to go back to the "old freestyle" before they put the referees in control by giving a control advantage to a wrestler when he didn't earn it. That made freestyle more like folkstyle and started freestyle's downward trend in popularity. If freestyle was as it is today when my son wrestled, he would never wrestled in high school or college. The biggest reason he stayed with wrestling than other sports, was freestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 22, 2008
|
|
Quote from Roe Fox's post:
|
|
"Hank:
I wonder, with so little time left, if he didn't try to do what Cejudo did: stay on the attack rather than wait and see what the Cuban did. If he didn't get the takedown he would grab and tie up. In hindsight trying to block and run may have been better but if he did that and the Cuban took him down with 10 seconds left, we might be questionning why he didn't stay aggressive."
|
Andy never shuts down, that's the way he has always wrestled. It is also why I have always loved to watch him wrestle.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
One of the issues regarding action is length of a match. Length of a match strongly influences the dynamic of action. The shorter the time frame, the more likely position will not be compromised, hence less action. Wrestlers are rewarded for staying in good position, putting a premium on strength over conditioning; defensive counter wrestling over offensive oriented wrestling
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Mr. Ramsey:
Andy never shut down and it cost him a W. That is negative reinforcement of the strongest kind.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Roe Fox added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Rex:
I get it and I agree that tactically the odds for success may have been higher if he shut it down and blocked. But I also think two things may have gone into his thinking. First, he beat Lawal in the final 10 seconds when Lawal shut it down against him at the Trials. Second, I'm guessing he figured that even if he didn't get the takedown he would have a leg and tie him up long enough to kill the clock.
If the Cuban did to him what he did to Lawal we might be wondering why he didn't stay aggressive since it worked for him through the trials and to that point in the match.
Regardless, a tough way to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Roe:
Let's take it one step further and suppose that he reviews the video with coaches of the current mindset of defensive/counter wrestling. What do you think he would be coached to do going forward? You are absolutely right about probability. I would much rather be on my feet in a neutral position rather than extended and on my knees. When you are coached to win, action be damned.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
|
Quote from Rex Holman's post:
|
|
"Roe:
Let's take it one step further and suppose that he reviews the video with coaches of the current mindset of defensive/counter wrestling. What do you think he would be coached to do going forward? You are absolutely right about probability. I would much rather be on my feet in a neutral position rather than extended and on my knees. When you are coached to win, action be damned."
|
Rex:
During your career, how many times have you seen the better, more aggessive wrestler shut down in a tight match and lose? I have seen that happen many times and can never really understand why they shut down what they do best,
to lose
. Sometimes the best defense, is the best offense.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
|
Quote from Hank Kornblut's post:
|
|
"Bob: The leg clinch is flawed but no worse than stalling. At least the action still decides the outcome in the leg clinch. As to your remarks about stalling not called as often at NCAA's or Ironman -- it's still called."
|
Yes, Hank, it's called -- and it's called in freestyle too, because regardless of style, "stalling" is a problem in wrestling.
In freestyle they used to put a guy down in par terre to penalize him for perceived "passivity", now it's the coin-flip leg-clinch they use to discourage stalling -- the problem is that it's awarded arbitrarily by pure luck, i.e. coin flip -- and the same wrestler might win 2 or even 3 coin flips in a row. Where's the fairness?
|
Quote from Rex Holman's post:
|
|
"One of the issues regarding action is length of a match. Length of a match strongly influences the dynamic of action. The shorter the time frame, the more likely position will not be compromised, hence less action."
|
Rex, yes, like you, that's how I see it -- under the new rule with 3 two-minute periods it's a strategy game -- get one point, go back to the middle and handfight/stall. And therefore now stalling is a bigger factor than ever in freestyle.
In freestyle, I, as well as others I talk to, prefer the previous 2 three-minute periods with the score carrying over to the 2nd period -- or the 1 five-minute period where an opponent couldn't really hide for that long, he was forced to wrestle and the best wrestler had a better chance of prevailing, imo.
Now we often see scores in freestyle where one guy in total is outscored by a large margin but wins 2 of the 3 periods 1-0, 1-1 so he wins the match.
At the Olympic Trials I see plenty of very good seats at finals matches empty -- you won't see that at the NCAA tournament or at the Ohio state tournament or at the Ironman. Fans vote by putting their butts in the seats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
