|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Hank Kornblut added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Bob: If we switched to freestyle, you'd still see butts in the seats at the Ohio state tournament, the Ironman and the NCAA tournament. And you'd see more at the Olympic trials because there would be hegemony between the styles and our best competitors post-collegiate would be our heroes.
My point is simple: High school and college wrestling fans are loyal to their programs and kids. If the style changed, everyone would scream and yell and ultimately accept it. I'm not saying we should change styles. But if we did it wouldn't affect the fan base in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Ken:
I know the situation of which you speak and it happened to me as a younger wrestler. But I was never prepared as I should have been for those situations. How many coaches do circumstantial wrestling during practice - i.e. 20 seconds left in a match with wrist control - and wrestle live from that situation for multiple reps. The best time to do it is when you are tired. Bruce Burnett did it. You can break all of wrestling down into situations based on position or circumstance. The best example I recall was seeing J.J. McGrew get so frustrated with Dominic Black's head and hand position while holding a lead in the waning seconds of a match that he started headbutting. Dominic won because he was prepared.
From my own personal vault, I took a shot on Chad Lamer for true third at the 2000 Olympic Trials and was in a crack back position with less than 10 seconds left. I initiated a tilt from that position. The referees initially scored it 2-2 and reversed after much deliberation to 2-0 me.
I left it up to the referees.
Albeit, the match was tied up until that point and I had to score, thus I was motivated to attack. Bottom line: once you shoot, it becomes a scramble. If you don't need to shoot, then don't.
Athletes are often too busy worrying about working hard that they overlook the small details. Not to aggravate a wound but Tommy should have been spending 50% of his training in the clinch. I am of the opinion that he would have beat Mocco at the Trials had he done so.
Bob:
I am in favor of two 3s or three 3s. Periods ending early for a technical fall of 10 points. There was a tournament at Fort Carson in '98 with some experimental scoring and matches had some crazy scores of 30+ points. I liked it.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Bob:
Having people score those kind of points in a tournament generates a lot more fan interest as it is entertaining. Would most people enjoy watching a chess match or a basketball game? Also, there was more buzz and excitement when an explosive or "scoring wrestler" was on the mat.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Christopher Henderson added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Does anyone else have a problem with all the wrestlers tying for the bronze medal? I mean they don't even wrestle-off for the bronze. I don't know if there is even another sport in the Olympics where they don't even compete for third. In girls' gymnastics, there was a tie score and they had some type of tiebreaker, which I don't even think was necessary.
Maybe this should be it's own topic, or under a new topic of "How to fix international wrestling". My suggestions are NCAA weigh-in procedures, 2 more weight classes, and two-day tournaments with double elimination.
As for Greco-Roman, I don't know where to start.
Go Vikings and Buckeyes!
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Bob Preusse added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Rex,
I recall that when Russ Hellickson won the silver medal in Montreal in 1976 at 220 pounds (I think that was the weight?), his gold medal match ended with him losing to the Russian 18 to 11 or 19 to 12.
Perhaps Ken Ramsey Sr. or another veteran observer can tell us why freestyle scores were so much higher back then -- and why they were probably much more enjoyable than today...?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Bob:
It's a totally different match under today's rules and format. As I recall, Yarygin scored all his points up front and Hellickson made a comeback at the end due to superior conditioning.
You could not bury your head and passivity had a totally different interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
|
Quote from Rex Holman's post:
|
|
"Bob:
Having people score those kind of points in a tournament generates a lot more fan interest as it is entertaining. Would most people enjoy watching a chess match or a basketball game? Also, there was more buzz and excitement when an explosive or "scoring wrestler" was on the mat."
|
Rex:
Exactly my point, "fans come to watch wrestling, not stalling." Yet your points listed above are encouraging wrestlers to shut down contrary to wrestling's intended rules to be active. (No matter the score.)
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
|
Quote from Bob Preusse's post:
|
|
"Rex,
I recall that when Russ Hellickson won the silver medal in Montreal in 1976 at 220 pounds (I think that was the weight?), his gold medal match ended with him losing to the Russian 18 to 11 or 19 to 12.
Perhaps Ken Ramsey Sr. or another veteran observer can tell us why freestyle scores were so much higher back then -- and why they were probably much more enjoyable than today...?"
|
Bob:
Before they started messing with the rules back in the late '80s, wrestling was an exciting, explosive sport. Takedowns were plentiful and the boring mat wrestling was controlled by returning the wrestlers to their feet when there was no action toward making a score. If you were not athletic enough to take someone down, you did not gain the advantage of wrestling on the mat; but then the Americans led the charge to get more mat wrestling making the sport more like folkstyle. Thus the evolution of the crap now called freestyle, which is really a modified folkstyle with an idiotic scoring system.
What really surprises me is how many of the great wrestling countries have gone along with the destruction of their sport.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Ken:
You are absolutely right that "sometimes the best defense is the best offense."
I would like to elaborate more on the subject of match-ending tactics.
The wrestler that is
prepared
to wrestle defensive/counter wrestling and is actively wrestling will not likely get scored upon.
However the wrestler that "shuts down" and is not prepared is no longer actively defending position intelligently or intensely. It is a lapse in concentration.
Those are two totally different mindsets for the same circumstance. That is why it happens to some and not others.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Ken:
Do we wrestle to win or appease the fans? Which one would you pick as an athlete?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
During the '90s, freestyle wrestling evolved into tactical match void of action. If you were too aggressive, it would likely cost you the match. Hence, you could either figure out how to make the rules work for you and be a tactician or continue to lose matches due to an unwillingness to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
|
Quote from Rex Holman's post:
|
|
"Ken:
Do we wrestle to win or appease the fans? Which one would you pick as an athlete?"
|
Rex:
Never being a wrestler, but competing in Minor League Football well into my 40s and amateur baseball and basketball most of my competitive career, I always competed to please myself. If that pleased the fans, it was icing on the cake. I think everyone competes to win, but there is always a loser in every event. If you try the best you possibly can, you should be satisfied with the results, win or lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Ken Ramsey Sr. added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
|
Quote from Rex Holman's post:
|
|
"During the '90s, freestyle wrestling evolved into tactical match void of action. If you were too aggressive, it would likely cost you the match. Hence, you could either figure out how to make the rules work for you and be a tactician or continue to lose matches due to an unwillingness to change."
|
Rex:
The tactical matches came about due to the change in rules, giving defensive wrestlers the rules to become great actors of aggression to gain par terre advantage. The matches then became decided by who could fool the referee by looking aggressive, most offensive action ceased. This was the opposite of the intended rules change and started the freestyle decline. Compounding the problems of the new rule was how the reputations of USAW National Team members almost always garnered them the par terre advantage first, whether they were the aggressor or not.
For me this stopped my urge to continue being a fan who went to Regional, National and International events; after missing few for almost 20 years, I have not been to one the last eight years and without many changes to the rules, probably never will.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Rex Holman added to this discussion on August 23, 2008
|
Ken:
I feel your pain with regard to wrestling's evilution.
I learned the hard way how freestyle worked, by trial and error and trying to figure it out largely by myself. I finished 4th at the 1996 Olympic Trials and 3rd in 2000. In retrospect, the only way I would have made the leap to being the best at the weight is with a coach that knew how to teach me to win and could impart that elusive wisdom to me. I am okay with just competing and doing my best. However, it is like taking a knife to a gun fight when you are competing against better coached athletes. Someone has a distinct advantage. Coaches can provide the way.
I am very opinionated which comes from 20+ years as a competitor who bled it all for all of those years. Kenny Jr. and me are in the same boat as we competed in the AAU Grand Nationals as kids to the Junior Nationals as schoolboys to the National Open as adults. I think the way I do based upon my experience. I hope I don't come across as stand-off-ish as I very much appreciate your input. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: SH-T!
Dan Cosimi added to this discussion on August 24, 2008
|
This discussion is awesome. Thank you all.
I'd like to add my $0.02...
I agree with Bob that it is much more advantageous to stay with folkstyle than to switch to freestyle. Folkstyle is so engrained in our culture that it is and will stay a bigger draw in the USA than freestyle or Greco-Roman. Another thing: if it isn't broke - which it isn't - there is no reason to try to fix it. I believe that in trying to "fix" it, the powers-that-be would alienate many competitors and fans.
I, for one, am a major supporter of folkstyle wrestling (though I would not say that we can't improve on our current rules). I think two rules that would go a long way to helping improve our sport would be these:
1. Make a takedown worth three points. This would add a lot of emphasis on dominance from the neutral position and take away some excess mat wrestling. And by excess I don't mean the good mat wrestlers because they'll score their three points with a turn.
2. Make penalties that previously awarded a point to the opponent only award a choice of position to the opponent. This will, instead of giving a wrestler a point, make him earn it, while still giving him the deserved advantage.
Switching gears a bit...
I despise freestyle's coin flip. I have discussed it with multiple people and some who disagree with me have attempted to equate it to stalling, saying it's the same thing - it decides the outcome. No, not even close. Here's why:
- In a tied match, stalling may or may not be called. By contrast, a coin flip is an inevitability.
- Another thing: Stalling is an actual penalty. A wrestler must be doing the non-action of stalling to be penalized. What does anyone do to desrve not winning the coin flip? Nothing.
- Another counterpoint I've heard is that referees will get an itchy hand and call stalling just because a wrestler is winning and not doing much - especially at the state tournament. First of all, I'm not sure that's true. For the most part, referees are good about that. Sure, you'll get one here and there but let's be honest, could that happen on the international scene in freestyle? (YES!) Secondly, if it is true, that just means we need to do our part to help our referees to be better educated. Maybe that means doing evaluations (like the ones that are done in any other OHSAA sport and also in NCAA wrestling).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
