Jump to content

patmilkovich

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

patmilkovich last won the day on May 31 2018

patmilkovich had the most liked content!

About patmilkovich

  • Rank
    Bronze Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sheesh! Where to begin? As previously mentioned, people are always going to cut. You can fiddle with the wt classes all you want, but most people will cut. With very few exceptions, virtually everyone has "fat'' that they can lose and it actually improves performance. That's the rub tho. Cutting weight is a science and most people don't do it correctly because it involves a lot of education, incredible discipline, and a plan. If kids are starving themselves or dehydrating or puking/taking diuretics/laxatives...then they aren't very educated or disciplined. We didn't have all these mandates back in the day. Sometimes we cut because it was better for the team. Sometimes we cut because it was better for us. It only makes sense that if you lose x number of pounds of permanent weight (fat), that you will be stronger, faster, more efficient. Cutting fat is the key and knowing what your limits are is too. Starting the process should begin a month to a month in a half before 1st weigh-in. Most people start cutting a week or so before...dumb. Once you lose the permanent wt. (fat), you shouldn't come in more than 5 lbs over between competitions. That's a key. As mentioned, you become acclimated to that wt. if you can stay within those boundaries. Plus, I was working out 3x/s a day. Once I got down to wt, I could eat almost anything I wanted...almost. When you come in more than 5 lbs. you aren't concerned with your timing, setups, action/reaction, strategies, etc., all you're thinking about is how much you need to lose in practice and what you can't eat that nite. I made it a habit to never leave practice until I was 1 - 2 lbs under wt the day before a weigh in. I had a nice piece of meat, baked potato, salad, water...I knew I could eat a good meal that would put me about 1-1/2 lbs. over and I'd drift it by weigh-ins easily. However, back then, we weighed in 5 hrs before a match. We got a 1 pound allowance in Jan (126 was 127), 1 more in Feb (128), and then at NCAA's we could weigh in Wednesday evening (128) or Thurs morn, then they added a pound on Friday (129) and another pound on Sat (130). I used to run 45 min, M-Sat, starting Oct.1, for 3 weeks (to make wt. for Dec weigh in). After 3 weeks it was cut to 40 for one week, then 30 for one week, etc., until it was just a 10 min balls out run. And that's where it stayed for the rest fo the season. I've heard the same stories about guys who lost 5, 6, 10...whatever pounds the day of and all that, and I've heard all the ones about those who gained 10, 15, or whatever before the finals...As far as I'm concerned, i think some stories are hyperbole, but more than that, I think it's foolish. You're that many pounds slower, it affects stamina, and it plugs up your system...IMO. I never had to waste any energy cutting to make wt the day of a competition. I believed in saving my energy for the match. I used to take such joy in watching my opponents busting their fannies doing all the things wrestlers do to make wt 5 hrs before we wrestled. I knew I had an edge on how I cut and managed my weight. Furthermore, I hate running. But I looked at running like I looked at the cutting wt. Every step I take, I'm farther from the beginning and closer to the end. Every day I cut wt. I was farther from the beginning and closer to the end of the season. It's only temporary. I cannot begin to tell you how many guys I wrestled with who complained about cutting wt and now they look like they fell on an air pump. I have way more to say, but I have to knock off a piece of Chef Pierre Carmel Apple Nut pie from GFS...the best!
  2. In folkstyle: Can someone explain to me: what a “stall ride” is? why controlling an ankle is any different than controlling the wrists, throwing legs, a claw, a spiral, a front headlock, underhook, two on one, or an inside tie? why 5 seconds is the magic number to release control below the waist? why the bottom man is not obligated to wrestle out of whatever is keeping him down. why, if 5 seconds below the waist is unacceptable and top man has to let go, concede, or otherwise change off, how come all situations don’t have a 5 count limit (Front head lock, 2/1, claw, legs, spiral, wrist elbow chop, underhooks, head tie, etc.,) how one can defend/counter a regular single, a low single, or a high crotch, but cannot defend/counter when someone catches their ankle or drops down to pick up a single from behind when standing? why the bottom man is wrestling on this stomach and elbows? why demonstrating control/dominance and being rewarded 2 pts. for a TD, or 2 pts. for a reversal, or points for tilts, or points for escapes, etc., is ok but controlling/dominating an opponent for over 1 min RT should not be rewarded? why the down man should get a “free up” if he can’t be turned and why RT should not be his penalty for his shortcoming? why starting 3 periods on your feet is more advantageous to procuring a fall than alternating top and bottom? why 1 point for every 30 seconds RT would not increase top/bottom action and decrease the alleged stalling on top? Thanks. Pmilk
  3. Starting from '85 to present....So far thru semi's (including pigtails) 28 falls---25 OT's...Most falls in '06=62, Least Falls in '94=22.... Most OT's in '99 and '13 =32....Least OT's '87=12...
  4. OldGrappler...you hit one of the nails on the head...nice evaluation. thanks for your contribution to the subject. milk
  5. "When Gene Mills introduced the tilt, scores skyrocketed. The tech fall eliminated those wild scores. It was kinda like a mercy killing and also maybe cut down on some pins. Yes, when I was in college the periods were 3-3-3. Can't say that made for more pins. It did make for more stalling. Back points were FAR harder to come by before tilts began. Earlier the scoring was 3 points for a 'near fall' and 1 point for a 'predicament'. Later they made a 'predicament' 2 points. But refs were stingy with back points. I saw a kid at PA States the other day score 3 back points with the other kid's back 6 inches off the mat. A ref back then wouldn't have even looked at that. And it had nothing to do with the time of exposure. It had to do with the angle of exposure. A major reason in the decline of pins may be the type of moves that lead to back points. Often, they aren't very good pinning moves. Good for exposure, but lousy for decking. Those types of moves didn't exist then. A pinning combination did just that. Its object wasn't back points, it was falls." Excellent analysis Cougar. Tilts holds are not pin holds, they are tilt holds, completely different than bona fide pin holds, but they satisfy the "work for a fall" emphasis. We have traded pins for tilts and wrestling a complete match for "tech falls." Back in the day, they kept wrestling regardless of the point spread. Check out some of the scores in the NCAA’s pre-mercy rule before ’85: Pat Christenson (Wis-‘74) 28-5 , Nabil Guketlov (Montclair St.-‘75) 26-9, Mike Land (ISU-’77) 26-4, Mark Churella (Mich-’77) 34-4, Bill Cripps (ASU-’80) 22-0, Gene Mills (Syracuse-81) 28-4, Charlie Heard (UTChat-’84) 32-12, Melvin Douglas (OkUniv-’84) 35-5, and then there’s this gem…Joe Gibbons (ISU-’84) 32-0. BUT THEY DIDN’T GET PINNED! Can you argue that there was little action and lots of stalling? The rules allowed that kind of wrestling! And these are just a sampling. And you are spot on with points awarded for a back 6 inches off the mat. Never would have happened way back when. And you had to have him glued to the mat for I believe 2 seconds...no such thing as the, basically now, "touch fall."
  6. Brown... Post mentions match length as a factor, but there are additional considerations that have impacted those stats. Briefly, TBND choice-3 periods starting in neutral, de-emphasis on bottom skills and the restrictions on top man that would force bottom to wrestle. Emphasis on FS/International and the incorporation of "cousin" concepts...e.g. 5 seconds below the waist is a relative of "no hands" below in Greco. "Choice" is a relative of FS starting in neutral and avoiding mat wrestling. Elimination of RT in high school has retarded the skills/strategies that are valuable for college. Oly wrestling is hanging by a thread and it's probably only a question of time before it's gone, I believe. So, folkstyle is our bread and butter. Pins are what brings fans out of their seats and those are becoming fewer and farther between, OT's are becoming more frequent, and the rules are the culprit. Gable's team of the late 70's and 80's were prime examples of pinners and excitement. The rules of the day were a huge factor. I believe it has zero to do with parity, year round wrestling, defense, clinics, earlier training, or parents. Watch the top schools, particularly Iowa and PSU..they excel in all three disciplines because they teach/understand all three in detail. Winning requires control and the rules change the definition..e.g., hand touch TD, neutral danger (I think that's an oxymoron)...limiting time below the waist alters the top man's ability to control and assists the bottom man. Bottom doesn't have to compromise his position that may lead to more trouble and it reduces his having to expend a lot of energy to do battle and as we all know fatigue makes you vulnerable as the match goes on. thanks for participating in the discussion.
  7. Swoop, Hoyle, Grogan, Always, and a couple other folks..thanks for your thoughtful insights. Here's how I see it with my timeline from the 60's to present. My major observations: I read and hear people complain that there is too much stalling, not enough pinning, wrestling is too boring. We need to change this rule or we need to change that rule. Wrestling is what is today because of the rules. There is a correlation, cause and effect, with some critical rules changes in 1985 (and since) that have impacted the incidence rates of falls and OT's. 1985 was the first year rules changed from alternating top and bottom for each man to choice, i.e., top-bottom-neutral-defer. Starting 3 periods on the feet does not help facilitate falls. I believe that particular rule change has done nothing to improve wrestling, especially with regards to pinning. I also don’t believe that rule alone has made falls decrease and OT's increase . Eliminating 2 points maximum for riding time, eliminating the requirement for bottom wrestling by limiting (5 sec) how long the top man can control below the waist, and reducing matches from 8 minutes to 7 minutes have all contributed to fewer falls, more overtime matches and, I think, decreased action and made wrestling less "active" for the most part. Eliminating RT in high school has certainly impacted T/B skills. Not to say there haven’t been some exciting matches over the years, but I think those changes have hurt more than helped.The constant push to transition to FS hasn't helped those stats either, since T/B skills are basically, related to folkstyle NCAA, non-essential and mostly geared to "neutral" wrestling.
  8. Ron Snee, PhD, and I plotted the number of Falls and OT's (Championship bracket) from 1975 to present, and the results are striking. It seems 1985 is the demarcation when OT's and FALLS diverge. Interesting to note '79 had the most falls with 84 and the least number of falls was in '76 with 49.The average falls per year from '75-'84 was 62.6. and 12.6 OT's for the same period. Regarding OT's, the most pre-'85 were in '74 and '75 with 19 and the fewest was 5 in '83. The average falls per year from '85-'94 was 37.2. and 18.1 OT's for the same period. Post '85 the most falls occurred in '06 with 62 and the least was 22 in '94. OT high was 32 in '99 and '13, and the low was 12 in '87. I will be interested to see the FALLS/OT numbers after this NCAA. If the emphasis is on "working for a fall," then clearly something is definitely wrong. What has changed and why have falls decreased significantly and OT's seem to have increased proportionally. I have my analysis but I'm interested in hearing other perspectives. pmilk
  9. 1979 I believe...in reference to the Gable statue...it was a signature posture for Dan and it wasn't unusual for him to do it to is own wrestler as well as opposing ones. He demanded and trained them to constantly pressure in and then change direction with head snaps..."Iowa also lost the 177‐pound bout as Mark Lieberman of Lehigh successfully defended his championship when Bud Palmer was disqualified for stalling." (excerpt) They had a rule for a couple years in the 70's that if you took two steps backward, it was automatic stalling...it was a great a rule for awhile and Gable/Iowa used it brilliantly...Two on one, two steps back..STALL!...inside tie, two steps back..STALL! undertook, two steps back...STALL! Problem was, you could get called 15 seconds into the match and you had that stall call hanging over your head for the next 7:45 min...if you lasted that long. It forced everyone to stay centered and wrestle and that played into Iowa's hands...Gable/Iowa mastered the push, push, resist...snap/shot...push, push, snap, front head..they just wore you out and they pinned a boat load of folks too in the process. Iowa's conditioning was superb, so that helped. Lots of "NCAA Champ pinned/loses after leading Iowa..." type headlines... I witnessed quite a few NCAA champs stare up at the lights after being up 5-6-7 points going into the third period..and you didn't get to choose feet...you had to go down and they pounded you there too...opponents would be so damn tired, they literally quit. Until folks basically stopped actually "wrestling." Then, the rule changed... it became who was strongest and positioned best to push and get stall calls with no real "wrestling." That's why the idea of a push-out, step out, or whatever you want to call it is not a good idea imo...we already have rules for avoiding contact or fleeing the mat..
  10. 157....Me, from Illinois? Ha...and who's John Smith? You're trollin....
  11. I think people also don’t realize how much top wrestling compared to bottom wrestling has improved Really? I would submit that because of the freestyle influences, both bottom and top wrestling has deteriorated. The older generation spent considerable time working on those positions. I believe most time in a practice today is spent on neutral. Not to say time isn't spent there. I do not believe that "wrestlers/wrestling" can become infinitely better. Look at mat returns. Once a guy gets to his feet, he's virtually guaranteed an escape. Not so back in the heyday. Eliminated fig 4 around the head, fig 4 around the waist, crotching an ankle, full nelson from the side to name a few. Also, back in the day, if you were going to your back, you had two options, fight it or go over. Very rare to call potentially dangerous. When you get the option to wrestle 3 periods from neutral, something has to suffer, and from what I see, that would be top/bottom skills. They also do not keep RT in high school anymore. So, that impacts building off previous technique, strategy, scoring, and using RT when you get to college and then it counts. It's partly why the efforts are made to change folk style to free...eliminate top/bottom...easier for coaches to teach flattening out on the mat, easier for wrestlers to learn flattening out on the mat. Watch the bottom guys in the NCAA's who can't get off their stomach, wrestle on their elbows, and generally just wallow around on bottom in their own ignorance. Mostly freestyle mentality that they can't adopt to folk. I think every wrestler should take his turn at top and bottom and not get the choice to avoid a personal weakness or an opponent's strength. But that's just me and I believe in stalling.
  12. 157, I don’t think that people not understanding stalling happens. I think it’s the egregious stuff that you used to not be able to get away with with so long and so blatantly. Good stalling with the way it used to be called was much more entertaining and strategic.That's part of my point. Obvious/egregious stalling is not smart stalling and should be called. Smart stalling is hard to detect and if/when it is called, it will have no bearing on the outcome of the match. Al least that's my experience with it. Back in the day, the bottom man was expected to have been taught the prevention and counters to whatever and to wrestle his way out. If he didn't create movement or action, he got called for stalling. By having to do so, he may also wrestle his way into more serious predicaments. Now he doesn't have to do that. There are at least 8 transitions for me on top if the bottom man is forced to wrestle when I go below his waist or from an ankle catch/hook. His reactions have two outcomes; more trouble for him or an escape/reversal. I see virtually no reason to be ahead of a good opponent, and then take unnecessary risks by being aggressive, whether top, bottom ,or neutral. This is where smart stalling..."looking busy" becomes a the weapon. He's the one behind and if I understand the rules, and wrestle within those parameters of expectation, two things should occur: 1) I shouldn't get called, and if so, it will be too late to make a diff. and 2) He will have to press and is prone to taking desperate risks... that makes it much easier for me to anticipate and defend. My dad always made the point that you will generally beat a good wrestler by 1 or 2 points...it's more of a chess match. I know most people think a 12-10 score might be construed as a great match...I see it as two wrestlers who made a lot of mistakes. You score points because someone made a mistake (unless you cut him loose intentionally). Just my take. I've seen many incredibly exciting low scoring 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, etc., matches with lots of action. I also notice that the bottom man in OT seems to wrestle with a lot more enthusiasm to get out, thus making the top man wrestle with more of the same. I find it very troublesome that if the top man goes below the waist and anchors/traps the ankle, the bottom guy is not obligated to fight out of it. Why then is there not a 5 count on a 2/1 wrist ride, spiral, thrown legs, russian tie, inside tie, underhook, overhook, whizzer, etc.? In all those situations you are doing the same thing; Isolating your opponent and waiting for a reaction that will lead to something else. Your hands can always come back to help your ankles but your ankles can not come up to help your wrists. So why is it deemed a disadvantage to be on bottom? You get the opportunity to score 1, 2, maybe 2 plus back points, and limit RT on top or reverse and accrue more for you, and let the top guy know he can't control you.
  13. 1977, My belief, if you are directing this to me, is if the bottom man is not doing his part to truly escape/reverse, then as the top man you have to "look busy", to avoid the stalling call and to make him look like he's stalling. There are plenty of wrestlers who are smart enough on bottom to not open themselves up to being turned...so his consequence is to be ridden...which translates to riding time, him tiring from battling the "look busy" techniques (which can translate to slower reactions if/when you end up in neutral), frustration because he knows he can't get away, he's not scoring, and you're in his head. Those are the consequences for the bottom man and if the top man is "looking busy" correctly, he isn't expending much energy, he's not in danger, he's not going to get called, and he's racking up RT. Additionally, the way the rules are structured now, the bottom man has the advantage. If top man goes below the waist with his hands, he has 5 seconds to transition or get called. That means there is no requirement for the bottom man to adjust, counter, or otherwise do something that may expose him to a more consequential position. In other words, all he has to do is wait 5 seconds and his bottom extremities are free. And, yes, I believe in using stalling as a tactic/strategy. Get ahead of a good kid and as my dad would say, "Cut Grass." His cue for "stall mode," "look busy," or however you want to phrase it. Smart wrestlers figure it out...and I consider myself a smart, rather than muscular, naturally gifted, wrestler. I also think it's very easy to sit in the stands, feeding one's pie hole, sipping a coke, admiring one's once flat stomach and well sculpted pecs, and demand more action. When you are actually out there for 8 min in our day, 7 now, working against all the pressures, pulls, pushes, torques, imbalances, actions/reactions, and leverages, it's very exhausting. So to demand constant action from both combatants is rather unrealistic.Stalling, whether you like it or not, agree with it or not, is an important and vital part of any successful wrestler's arsenal.
  14. 158, It's whiney, regardless of who it is. Although I absolutely agree with you in regards to the main purpose of folkstyle wrestling being controlling your opponent, the main point of “stalling” rules are to mandate BOTH wrestlers try to improve their position. Regardless of learning techniques to thwart many stalling techniques some of these guys are good enough and strong enough to make these techniques very difficult, draining and time consuming to get out of that stalling position and then they would still need to escape or reverse from the basic position before the top man possibly implements the “stalling” ride all over again. Sorry, being one of not great strength or blessed with natural talent, understanding leverage, timing, action/reaction, imbalances, angles, and torques allowed me to be relatively successful against opponents who possessed much greater strength and natural ability. As they say, "If muscle meant everything, a bull would catch a rabbit." All those muscles need a lot of oxygen to function, so forcing Adonis to work hard was an advantage. I've seen a lot of muscle bound wrestlers get beat, when they were way ahead, because they got tired. Fatigue makes cowards of us all...Furthermore, it's supposed to be difficult to escape/reverse and it's supposed to be difficult to ride or control the bottom guy...that's what good guys do to each other. If either position was easy no one would "whine" about it. You were so good that your perspective may be slightly clouded. But, it is exceptionally hard to escape from experienced DI wrestlers. Put those wrestlers on inarguably the best team in the country with a track record of positional success across the board and it becomes even harder to stop. Have that technique be designed to considerably hinder movement and it becomes even harder. Hmmm...Okie State, Okla Univ, and ISU were the creme de la creme back in the golden era. They were great at mat wrestling...particularly escapes. If you could stop their standup, it increased your chances of success. Like Myron Roderick used to say, "If I can take you down and I can escape, how are you going to beat me?" You're making excuses as to why one cannot learn to do well unless they are naturally superior or go to a superior coached school. We had many D2 and D3 wrestlers (Clarion, Portland State, Montclair for example) at he NCAA's who performed exceptionally well against the kinds of D1 kids you describe and powerhouse schools of the day. So are coaches supposed to teach top techniques that make it easier for the bottom man to get out or reverse? I'm kinda getting the idea that you want things to be "easy." Let’s not forget that even though you are correct in that there are techniques to counter everything, there is also a counter to that counter. On top of that, superior skill and brute strength can and do often trump those techniques, especially when the other wrestler is already in such a disadvantaged position to begin with. Being on bottom is not a disadvantage unless you are not skilled at the techniques and setups that allow you to escape or reverse. Being in neutral is a disadvantage if you have no offense and poor defense. Being on top is a disadvantage if you have little knowledge or skill to control the bottom man. So how do you acquire superior skill and brute strength? Are those only found in certain kids and schools? I'll refer you back to the bull/rabbit. From experience I learned that scoring points should take little time and little energy. It should look like you are drilling. Relying on muscle, in my opinion, is not a very solid strategy. Now, I say all this having been lucky enough that my best position by far was bottom having had the leg strength and explosion necessary to get out fast from most. But, I soon learned that things like that aren’t teachable. Just because I could do it doesn’t mean the next guy could and vice versa. As far as I'm concerned, getting off bottom is an attitude. If you don't like being there, you will do the work, study the techniques, and practice the skills necessary to be successful. Being on top is an attitude. You have to hate people escaping because they are better on bottom than you are on top. Not being taken down is an attitude. You have to hate being taken down and learn the techniques and practice the skills to prevent it. There are setups to everything. Takedowns, riding, escapes all have setups and there are counters to the setups. Because someone traps your ankle, I hear you saying, you're screwed and he's stalling because you don't have an answer to that technique. NO, there's an answer to virtually everything except laziness and ignorance...I should probably add "no heart" too. Can't give anyone that. Finally, in the end, let’s not forget that the main intent of these rules is to create action. By coming out perpendicular when riding you do create more leverage positions to turn with. But, on the flip side you are now not sitting on the opponents hips with all your weight, blocking him off. That creates a give and take ENCOURAGING action on both sides. Which is a good thing! Perhaps I interpreted the rules differently. I thought the intent was to score more points than my opponent within the confines of the rules. If I'm stalling and it's obvious, call me. If I'm stalling and it's very difficult to detect...too bad for you. Part of my job as a wrestler was to expose my opponent's stalling. But then again, perhaps my brain had superior skill and strength. I rather enjoying pitting my knowledge, skill, work ethic, strategy, technique, and conditioning against my opponents' like qualities.
  15. Of course there is ...there's stalling in all positions. But it's pretty hard to stall on top when the bottom man is very active. Why is it the top man's responsibility to create action? I've seen stalling with russian ties, underhooks, overhooks, inside ties, single shots, elbow ties, half shots...etc. I've seen bottom guys do just enough to not get called, but they were stallin and they were ahead protecting their lead. So if you don't know how to stall effectively, that's not your opponent's fault. Stalling is a part of the game whether you agree with it or not. Don't be the guy who's behind who has to deal with a savvy opponent who knows how to milk it. Be ahead and let him deal with you. And if you don't know to stall, then you are missing one of the great strategies of the game.
×
×
  • Create New...