Jump to content

vhsalum

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by vhsalum


  1. Is it important to FILA to limit the subjectivity in scoring bouts?

     

    What are the protocols for ensuring officials are CONSISTENTLY making the right calls and the SAME CALLS?

     

    Will FILA consider only "changing/interpreting/addition to" the rules once a year?

     

    We have been told by one of your board members that FILA is interested in each bout determining the "better wrestler." If that is the case, then why have the bouts end prematurely with rule criteria other than a pin?


  2. Littlepun, think the old rules when a guy had the leg clinch. If he sat him to his butt that was scored 1. Same position with Pico only now it's scored 2.

     

    FANTASTIC! Lets carry-over a rule that was the bane of wrestling's existence for the last 7 years!

     

    *Face-palm*

     

    Once again, NUANCES! And one that isn't EVEN A TAKEDOWN!

     

    *Slams Head Against Wall*


  3. First, thanks for responding Stan. I hope you understand how frustrated we are, and I understand you are not the dictator of FILA... with that said, here are my issues, responding to your examples in kind...

     

    standziedic wrote

    Perhaps a few examples will help:

    1. Let's start w/ a standing headlock. Wrestle A throws his opponent directly to the mat exposing his opponent's shoulders; wrestler B immediately slips out and "passes-behind". International Scoring: 3 pts for a TD w/ exposure is awarded to wrestler A, 1 pt wrestler B for a 'pass-behind' or 'reversal', your choice; Folkstyle in contrast: Wrestler A is awarded 0 pts for his efforts to take his opponent from his feet down to the mat; wrestler B is mysteriously anointed a 2 pt TD--even though wrestler B never took wrestler A down, only wiggled his head free Unintended consequence: In the USA the fans are denied what many associate as fundamental to wrestling--a headlock. How often do you see a collegiate wrestler throw a headlock? Explain the folkstyle scoring to a novice intern'l-wrestling fan and you probably will get this response: "That seems stupid, why would anyone ever risk throwing a headlock in American folkstyle?" Answer: "They don't."

     

    Lets not make this a Folkstyle comparison. I have my own reasons, as do many others, for enjoying Freestyle, and the one thing I like is the inherent risk involved in freestyle is rewarded. This is not a good example, because a rule is already in place for this specific situation... It's a called a slip. And any freestyle fan, American or otherwise understands the difference. This is not what is upsetting me.

     

    standziedic wrote,

    2. Now a flip side example: Wrestler A, the underneath wrestler, executes what the USA dubs a 'switch'. During the execution, wrestler B stands-up. Now both are standing and wrestler A, hands-locked, is now behind wrestler B. Folkstyle scoring--wrestler A, a reversal; international scoring, zero. Yet should wrestler A take his opponent to the mat, guess what, now in intern'l wrestling it's a TD, worth 2 pts. Likewise, if wrestler B executes a standing cross-arm roll taking his opponent to the mat, he too would be rewarded 2 pts for a TD or 3 if wrestler A exposed his back in the process [A move Ben Peterson effectively adapted from folkstyle that gave Stakhov USSR fits in Munich].

     

    Once again, NOT an example of what is being "intrepreted" as a takedown. There is no issue in this situation for which it is called, and "technically" this should be considered a "pass behind" as according to the new rules "clarification." But I digress...

     

    standziedic wrote,

    Remember the preeminent goal remains: to determine the "better wrestler." This should be accomplished not be assumptions or anointing points; rather by executing viable wrestling techniques verifiable by the referees, coaches, wrestlers and viewing audience.

    We're talking about judgement of value here. The benefit-of-doubt should always go to the wrestler who takes risk. The rules should differentiate between slipping one's head out after being thrown to one's back or pushing one's opponent out-of-bounds versus a well-executed TD; otherwise you create distorted incentives.

    All sports require judgement. The rules are supposed to remove the value of chance. A well-executed takedown has been judged to be more valuable than a 'pass-behind' by most. As a competitor, I understand it completely. It's the soul of intern'l wrestling--it's what makes it such a great sport.

     

    This is untrue as untrue gets. This defies all meaning in combative/competitive sports. It has NEVER been about "determining" the better wrestler. Listen to what your saying! This is NOT a beauty contest, nor should it ever be. The use of the word "judgement" should be taken OUT of the vocabulary of any person who actually wants to see this sport grow! And since when were the inceptions and intrepretations of the rules meant "to remove the value of chance." ???? This is a paradigm I am completely unaware of in any manner of sports.

     

    Newsflash Stan - Rules are intended to instil the NOTION of equality WITHOUT bias. By your OWN ADMISSION today, you are telling me FILA is much more interested in making our sport a Beauty Pageant, or an Ice Skating Routine. I'm sorry but that's NOT what I signed up for, and not what any rational individual (American, Iranian, Russian, Turk, Cuban, Indian, et al.) would consider to be the measure of sport and what it means to participate in them. Thanks to you, I now have it in writing, that FILA is more concerned with "determining the better wrestler." That should never happen. Rules are in place to set a STANDARD, nothing more, nothing less. At that point it is the ATHLETES determine who WINS under those standards, NOT a man in a tie who didn't cut 5kg the night before!

     

    standziedic wrote,

    This is a perfect example: Any wrestler whose primary tactic is "jockey for position"-- euphemism for stalling in the minds of the prepared--should be penalized; assuming the referees are keen enough to recognize the ill-intention. These tactics are the very bane to the sport and needs to be banished if wrestling is to survive as a dynamic modern Olympic sport.

     

    There is already a rule in place for this "type" of wrestling. It is called passivity. It exists, it is being called. Leave it at that.

     

    standziedic wrote,

    Think keep it simple!

    Most in the world would be confused if someone was awarded a TD, for what to them is clearly not a TD, rather a "pass-behind." Of course, this is not generally the way USA fans accustomed to folkstyle have grown to misuse the term or interpret what is a TD. Yet for the largest majority of the world, it's been this way forever or at least since I started wrestling intern'lly some 40+ yrs ago. Many American fans, burdened w/ this pre-conceived notion of a TD, have never quite discerned the difference--perhaps because it didn't matter, both were scored 1 pt. until now.

    The new rules now demand an interpretation [the referee's job]. Why? because a TD is now 2 pts. and what folkstyle defines as a 'reversal', but the world may call in some circumstances a 'pass-behind' is still 1 pt.

     

    Yes. Lets! And here we finally arrive at the crux of the problem and the reason I am so disgusted has only been verifed by yourself. I appreciate the historical cultural lesson. I didn't realize that outside of the US, there was an inherent difference between a "pass-behind" and a takedown. (no sarcasm, this at least explains a bit why there was a rules "clarification")

     

    Americans have NOT misused or mis-interpreted what is a TD. In FILA's own rule book it has ALWAYS been worth the same amount of points as a leg attack. This needs to be called what it is, a RULE CHANGE. Once again, it has been decided that ARBITRARY rule-making and interpretation of techniques should be factors in "determining the better wrestler."

     

    Therein lies the dichotomy between FILA and those who actually love sports. I won't get into the MILLIONS of examples wherein, the better athlete or team didn't win. That has NEVER been the point of sports. I can't believe you're admitting that FILA wants wrestling to become, or get closer to, Ice Skating, Gymnastics, Battle Rap, et al - sports that allow humans OTHER than the athletes competing to determine/judge the winner.

     

    You yourself have been on this board and explained/complained about the inherent subjectivity of the officials. This bias and judgement and discernment by the referee needs to TAKEN AWAY. After all this time Stan, I thought that those in charge would truly understand. I'm heart-broken and aghast to realize that that is not the case. I truly fear for the sport, if those in charge really do believe that it is the officials "job" to INTERPRET. That is incorrect.

     

    It is a referee's job, AND HIS ONLY JOB, to ENFORCE the rules of the sport. Wow. Just Wow. :cry:


  4. After seeing this post, I took a closer look at the new rules to see what they say. I don't know about you guys, but I do not understand the scoring rules at all. For instance, how to score 1 point is on page 29:

     

    1 point

    - To the wrestler who applies a correct hold while standing on the mat or in the "par terre" position but who does not place his opponent in danger. Ummm... so you can score without actually scoring?

    - To the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms, his back facing the mat.Huh? Someone please explain.

    - To the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold, but who finally succeeds in completing the hold. Not sure about this one either?

    - To the attacking wrestler whose opponent flees the hold, the mat, refuses to start, commits illegal actions or acts of brutality. This one's pretty clear.

    - To the wrestler who holds his opponent in a position of danger for five seconds or longer. Is this like folkstyle, when you get 3 near-fall points?

    - To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing position).This must be the push-out rule.

    - All the stops of bout by injury without bleeding or any visible injury are penalised by 1 point to the opponent. Got it.

    - To the wrestler whose opponent requested a challenge if initial decision is confirmed. Got it.

     

    All of those rules have been in place prior...

     

    The "correct hold" is much more common in greco. Basically, it means you force your opponent into a "rotation," however is back never exposes.

     

    "to the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms..." - Imagine putting your opponent on his butt, his hands on the mat. (see Saitiev vs. Murtazaliev 2008 Russian Nationals for an example of this)

     

    "to the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold..." - Akin to locking hands in Folkstyle. You'll get a +1.

     

    While these nuances have been placed in the past, they need to be gone. And I'm still waiting on FILA (which they will never do) to explain why they are CHANGING THE RULES OF THE SPORT. For years, I've been standing behind FILA with the "format" change, because that's mostly what the rules did. But this is not that case. Once again, you are making the "judgement" of a referee, a too-valued part of the sport.

     

    Now referees are being asked to consider whether a takedown is an offensive or defensive maneuver????


  5. the counters/go behinds that were scored 1pt instead of a 2 point td is what he was complaining about. the gilman counter was originally scored 2 and corrected to 1. was a gray area as he attacked the legs after getting an angle on a missed attack by the bulgarian.

     

    Yes, this is what I am "complaining" about. I put that in quotations, because the fact is, this is a FUNDAMENTAL change in our sport. Suddenly, a takedown is no longer a takedown.

     

    Here is how it would sound:

    1-point shall be awarded to the wrestler, who, in the standing position, counters his opponents offensive attempt, and obtains control.

     

    So now I can dive in on a shot, allow my opponent to spin behind me, and its 1 point? Again, the nuances necessary to compete, coach, referee and watch this sport is what has killed it in the past. And, the reason, i'm so anti-FILA right - THE REASON ITS GOING TO DIE AGAIN!

     

    Keep it simple, or we will NEVER draw the casual fan.


  6. So yet AGAIN FILA gets in its own way, and refuses to let the sport be simple.

     

    A rules 'clarification' intended to arbitrarily REWARD THE OFFENSIVE WRESTLER???

     

    I really don't understand what inept governing body could continually change the RULES and format of the sport and get away with it???!!! Oh, that's right. FILA. The same dinosaurs who continue to believe the wrestling community owes them something for even existing.

     

    This 'clarification' is a RULE CHANGE. Suddenly a counter-offensive takedown is NOT A TAKEDOWN? It's 'seen' as a reversal?

     

    I really wish I knew the answer to this, but it is these things that make me want to keep myself and my club away from FS/GR.


  7. I am a huge Greco-lover. But it needs to be cut. Olympics wants equality? Having two mens styles and one women's aint it. Cut greco, eliminate the two bronzes, and lets get 10 and 10 in FS.

     

    So simple a caveman could do it. F'n A, people!

     

    You seriously think they would have 10 weight classes in FS if GR is cut. Guess what, they would still only have six weight classes in FS. I'm not opposed to having FS only if it meant more weight classes, but it doesn't. First GR would be cut. Then it would be only a matter of time that Wrestling would be cut from the Olympics altogether. Sorry, that's not the answer.

     

     

    Sorry bud, but it IS the answer. If the IOC is limiting the AMOUNT of Gold Medals/Medal Count they are giving out per sport, then yes, even FILA would be able to draw the conclusion that if one sport (Greco) is dropped, then weight classes WILL be added. 6 is an arbitrary number WE created because we don't want to drop a style. I'm sorry guys, but the IOC wants EQUALITY and 12 Golds in Mens WRESTLING and 6 in Greco is NOT IT.

     

    Why would dropping a style make Wrestling cut from the Olympics altogether? That's an asinine comment to make... We HAVE ALREADY been dropped guy! Weight classes are NOT our problem. It's a whole set of other reasons, with equality among them. At the same time, FILA is not being representative of its people, and the sad fact is, it never has. We wouldn't even be in this position if it weren't for our arrogance! It won't happen, but Greco SHOULD be dropped. I don't want it to, but hey, 6 weight classes is NOT the answer.


  8. "Stan" won't comment on this. And I'm waiting to see if they post this "headline" on the FILA official Facebook page.

     

    THE ONLY WAY I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT FILA AFTER THIS IS:

     

    They stop kowtowing to some "invisible" rule and go to 10 weight classes in the World Championships years. And i'm sick of hearing it can't be done... THEY DO IT FOR WOMEN'S WRESTLING AS IT IS.

     

    I am a huge Greco-lover. But it needs to be cut. Olympics wants equality? Having two mens styles and one women's aint it. Cut greco, eliminate the two bronzes, and lets get 10 and 10 in FS.

     

    So simple a caveman could do it. F'n A, people!


  9. Nice, long discussion on the FILA's newest rule changes... Check out the FILA OFFICIAL Facebook page.

     

    Would like to see some of our regular posters join the discussion. Silent Dziedzic finally makes an appearance, tells us that World and Olympic Champions don't mind the rule change because they've 'never been 5'd'

     

    The concept 'out of touch' doesn't exist within FILA.

×
×
  • Create New...