Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StanDziedzic

  1. YET.....This is not an issue under the auspices of the Technical Commission....there will be singlet and mat redesign.
  2. One insurmountable hurdle: As it already has been determined & presented to the FILA Bureau in Budapest, RIO has wrestling scheduled for 6 days [2 GR, 2 FW & 2 FS] in a venue shared by other sports in each of the other days???
  3. Thanks...a real attempt to find a plausible solution. Problem [probably insurmountable]: Convincing the world to develop a training regime for all of the wrestlers in the world to optimize performance in a 3 day format, except 1 weight class. Especially if the weight class is not certain at least 3 years in advance?
  4. For the most part each is: Tennis staggers mixed dbls, men's dbls, women's dbls, women's finals and then men's finals?? In fact tie matches are limited in the preliminary rds. Track & Field 100 m dash, high jump, long jump, pole vault, 200m dash, marathon, shot put, hammer throw etc are staggered. Swimming the same--100m, 50m breaststroke, backstroke, relays etc are staggered. Gymnastics--men's parallel bars, rings, all-around, floor exercise are held on different days. Boxing--because of its unique concussion problem require more recuperation--it was the 1st to have 2 bronze medals because the losers of the semis could not always fight again. For the single bracket team events of course it is impossible to organize in one day when there is only one medal, 16 teams and the events takes several hours. As a member of ATL's risk-mgnt committee and venue advisor; I can say the organizers prefer as many finals each day as possible and generally organizes to maximize the #. In ATL, if my memory serves me correct, the ticket for the wrestling finals--the night Engel wrestled his famous referee's decision victory--traded @ the highest multiple by the scalpers of any ticket in the entire '96 Olympic Games. Yet the preliminary sessions were often not full. In London wrestling tickets everyday were extremely difficult to acquire and each finals sold out.
  5. 1 or 2 days are the only option because of the Olympic program requirement to have finals everyday; or at the least every day but the 1st day? Prior to that change, Olympic wrestling was competed in a 3 day format (weigh-in everyday--flat weight 2 hrs before competition). In Montreal, the final day (medal rds) were filled to capacity @ the main arena. The 1st 2 days, on the otherhand, were void of spectators @ the local high school gym--even though several of the gold and silver medalist wrestled in the early rds (rd-robin, no seeding).
  6. The National Federations supply candidates to the Referees Commission, Athletes Commission, Research Commission and Technical Commission, for example. FILA assigns the Chairperson and votes on its members. To ensure the veracity of the process, a group tabulates the results. In the case of the Athletes Commission, the 7 members were 'elected by their peers' as stipulated by the IOC. Each entry @ this year's WC in Budapest had the right to cast his/her vote for 7 members. These 7 elect members will select their representative to the FILA Bureau shortly. To the extent someone wishes to know how each voted, it's up to the individual to divulge. Otherwise, it has the potential to encourage misguided decision making--one that is influenced by the most vocal at the expense of the most committed. The Athletes Commission is expected to represent its peers--the committed wrestlers who earned his/her spot on their respective team @ the WC in this case. Each 4 yrs the process will be repeated. FILA must ensure the tabulation are beyond reproach and should convey the results. It should not compromise the integrity of the process or influence the voting by reporting how each member voted. In many cases the voting is purposefully secret--each member receives a certified ballot; the ballots are then collected (w/out names) and tabulated and are available for review if desired. The FILA members are supplied the final tabulation, 18-7 for example; but not which countries made up the 18 or the 7. I have a question: I am a bit confused by something. Earlier you mentioned support for more rest between bouts and now you write "(criteria instead of OT, 7 point techs, and so on) doesn't square with our (admittedly North American) experiences, where most wrestlers we know do not support the rule." You can't support both more rest and OT. For example, @ the US team trials this year there was an OT bout (Dake-Howe) that lasted 6 minutes--in effect 2 full matches w/ no rest. In addition, both wrestlers were deprived of valuable rest time before the next bout [both were teched in less than 2 minutes??]. If the semi-finals and/or repechage are set to start 1745h for instance and the finals are set for 1900h [^ 1h+ rest] and one match has an OT that last 12 running minutes; the end result would be: 1 wrestler in effect wrestles 3 bouts w/out any rest and then has to wrestle in the finals or for 3rd w/ as much as 30 minutes less rest than his/her opponent????
  7. There is widespread agreement among the worldwide wrestling community--FILA Bureau members, referees, coaches, athletes and researchers--that there needs to be more time between matches, wrestling would do well to introduce tournament presentation efficiencies and generally 6 wtg classes strain the breadth of the wrestling population. Most of these issues will be part of a broader discussion regarding 1 or 2 day format, daily starting time [morning session 9-11h], broadcasting, event presentation, separating freestyle & GR World Championships and rule adjustments.
  8. I hope this isn't about anyone's ego, the least of which I hope is mine. If wrestling learned anything, it should've learned that egos are not a good thing. I've not had time to go thru all the post but let me start: To clarify, I believe I argued that for as long as I've been involved in intern'l wrestling a 'pass-behind' has been viewed as distinctly different than a 'takedown' in intern'l wrestling--though it mattered little because both were worth 1 pt. Still the majority of the world view a 'pass-behind' & 'takedown' as different. The question now is: How many points should a 'pass-behind' & a 'takedown' be worth. Perhaps equally important; Are the referees and fans able to distinguish the difference sufficiently consistent? In Budapest, the FILA referees-now I hope somewhat more independent referees--deemed consistency trumped the fact that a 'pass-behind' was not as worthy as a 'takedown' in the eyes of most wrestlers. In addition, some felt scoring the 2 differently opened an tactical avenue for a wrestler to dodge wrestling in some cases as the match wound to a close. Hence, in Budapest it was agreed to score both the same, 2 pts. As FILA puts the rules in stone, this most certainly will be among the issues to be debated. And what I feel isn't going to be most important. It's what the world deems best for the sport of wrestling. Regarding the weight classes, I think Georgy in the broadest sense summed up well what our Technical Committee concluded at its meeting in Budapest. The intentions are to have the weight classes in place by the end of this month.
  9. I believe Watnabe like Dan Gable was one a select few to win an Olympic Gold w/out relinquishing a pt to any opponent--not any opponent in all of his intern'l. matches. If I remember correctly, he beat the Soviet 1-0 :?: I believe Tediashvili was undefeated in international competition [Yarygin beat him in Tbilisi] until his last match @ the '78 World's in Mexico City against the E. German--Butner [he was pinned in a touch fall 'Grand Amplitude' throw]. Had he won, he would have joined Anatoli Belaglozov as the only wrestlers to win Gold medals @ 3 distinct weight classes.
  10. AnklePicker wrote, "While you're at it lets see a list of the FILA salaries." You can stop looking. You won't find any. The FILA Bureau members are volunteers. In fact, in most cases the expense reimbursement doesn't cover the costs incurred carrying out one's duties--which generally consume 60 or so days on the road [100+ this year] as a FILA delegate @ Continental Championships, site inspections and 2 annual bureau meetings and now this year, of course, making sure the 104 IOC members understand what wrestling provides its participants and the role it plays as a force for good. Today's NY Times has a well-researched article regarding squash's journey and the upcoming vote in Buenos Aires, which some may find insightful. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/busin ... GSj/n1Q4hA jstock wrote: "I would hope Stan would start to think about what his legacy will be in wrestling. Will he be remembered one day as a great competitor, coach and administrator or the politician who played a role in screwing up one of the worlds oldest and greatest sports." I care little about my legacy or how I'm remembered, my focus is to do what I can to preserve the dreams of being an Olympic Champion for the millions of wrestlers world-wide--male and female, GR and freestlye--something it appears you care little about.
  11. olddirty wrote, "Just stop with this crap. The tournaments are 4/3 weights per day. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if you went to a tournament schedule that ran 5/4 weights in a day, it would run til midnight? BS to the max. This literally happens every single weekend in America with 16-32 man brackets with 10 weights and it can be done in the same time frame that FILA runs 3 weights with 1 minute less time and no overtimes." Stop embarrassing yourself. There are 40+ man/woman brackets w/ 3 mats. 5 wtgs would take well into the next day :?: jstock wrote: "How were the sessions ran when we had longer matches and more weights in the 70's to early 80's...you know..." Of course I know, I wrestled '73 to '77, National Coach '78 to '84. Here's a clue---19 to 25 wrestlers/weight class; 3 day tournaments; each discipline separate location; 2 to 3matches/day; scratch weight every day, 2 hrs before session started and rd robin format?? Today's #s--roughly 18 day tournament for the 3 disciplines????? What developing country and even most advanced countries w/ depressed currencies could afford such a system :roll:
  12. quanon wrote: "If there were no 1 PM rule, then match length should not be an issue (I ask because match length is apparently the reason for the 7 point tech?)." It isn't an issue for me. I don't mind watching wrestlers determine who the best is for 12 or so hrs. But many including the media appear to have a limit. Adding roughly 50% more wrestling time/bout--w/out off-setting time elsewhere--may take the session well past midnight. Again okay by me! I'm for the 9 am start, which would provide more--maybe not ample rest time--for the wrestlers in the key 1/4 and 1/2 final matches. The researchers disagree, they argue adding 50% more wrestling time/match when wrestling 5 or 6 matches in some cases w/ 15 minutes rest in one day, taxes the wrestlers beyond what can be justified scientifically and impairs the quality of wrestling in the most watched matches. Here's Sports Illustrated's take today: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2013/o ... wrestling/ jstock wrote, "The number of DI programs is down but the number of entries at NCAA's is about the same." Of course, the number of qualifiers is the same. How many spectators and wrestlers would there be if the NCAAs were in let's say Uzbekistan?
  13. tirapell wrote, "You mean like the NCAA Tournament? The one that draws 15,000+ annually for 3 days of 9-10am start and 10 pm finish, with a 2-3 hour break in between?" And what? The # of Division I programs has shrunk at a time when the number of member Federations and participant @ the World Championships has skyrocketed. The number of entries/wtg @ this yr's WC will be 25% greater than @ the NCAAs. There are a 177 FILA members, up from roughly ninetyish, 25 years ago. London's attendance by the way was roughly 160,000 and would have been larger if not limited by the size of the venue. Each year the WC's feed is purchased and viewed by a much larger TV viewing audience than the NCAAs. You insult the intelligence of the readers. I think most see clearly your less than veiled desire to have wrestling out of the Olympic program.
  14. LlwdSteve wrote: "Following the IOC's decision and the subsequent removal of FILA's President in February, an opportunity to broaden the changes to reflect the removal of constraints placed by FILA's previous leader was opened. What specifically were the constraints that came from the previous leader?" Best-of-three match format, 2 minute periods, a 30 second sudden-death-overtime using the 'ball-pull/clinch' and 13:00 starting time are a few off-hand. "The rules makers seized the opportunity to re-solicit the ideas of the worldwide wrestling community. As these new rules are put to practice adjustments are being made. Hopefully following Budapest the final touches can be put in place for the remainder of the quadrennial." Seems like purposeful experimenting, which, under the circumstances, should be very useful. BTW, which factions pushed for the 7 point TF? And their rationale?" As we solved for various priorities, constraints materialized. For example, by going to a 2 x 3 minute-period, cumulative score format; it meant that roughly 50 % of the matches had to end prematurely by 2 minutes to off-set the additional 1 minute/period--[given the number matches that had been determined in two 2 minute periods in the best-of-three format minus the time saved by not using 30 sec. sudden-death overtime]. In addition, the broadcasters and other media advised more than 3 mats and a 2-day format were not in the best interest of wrestling. Most agree w/ Technical Superiority. When it was settled to use a 1 day format w/ 15 minute breaks between the 1/4 & 1/2 finals, 7 pts became a starting point. Me personally, I'd rather have a starting time of 9 am; repechage for those losing to 1/2 finalists, no 2 x 3s ending the bout, 10 pt TS and a longer break time between the 1/4 and 1/2 finals. After Budapest, we'll have more information to determine if we are able to introduce any of the alterations the world-wide wrestling community desires, w/out sacrificing the 3 minute period time?? "But the 1st "Athletes Questionnaire" was 1st posted on FILA's website roughly a yr ago." Media and fans....?" We also will have the input from the wrestlers, coaches, media, researchers, referees, TV Broadcasters and fans attending the World Champ. in Budapest "Major sports are not facing a looming decision regarding its future in a matter of weeks.......understand the personal @ FILA's hdqtrs priority of ensuring the wrestlers whose native language is Farsi, Azeri, Turkish, Georgian, Japanese, Bulgarian or Russian understand the adjustments before the wrestling fans. Don't you think if the National Federations felt it necessary to inform the fan base, they'd have better access?" The current crisis certainly tests (or exposes) the capabilities of the leadership corps. Indeed, we'll find out in a week.
  15. sockobuw wrote, "Stan: Why are you not willing to say what the Gilman scoring situation should have been scored? Isn't it best for the athletes, coaches, and fans to know how a situation should be called? There will always be human error, but it seems that you can't decide how that scenario should have been scored according to the book." As in any sport--football, baseball etc--the viewing audience, coaches, and players disagree w/ calls made by the officials, as indicated in today's WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61210.html As I've said before: "I am often wrong, but never in doubt." So I have an opinion: "I have no doubt that the call should have been challenged." Remember I have the luxury of hindsight. If the 'Jury of Appeal' overturns the 1 pt call, I'd pat myself on the back. If it rejected my appeal, I'd begin to look for where I made the mistake, so I didn't make the same mistake again. I am confident that in concert, the refereeing body and the "Jury of Appeal' overwhelmingly are correct. The only time I felt that collectively the viewing audience may have even approached this group was in Tbilisi. You didn't need the challenge in Tbilisi, the fans kept the referees on guard.
  16. jstock wrote, "I am discouraged by reading Stan's replies. I am starting to feel that if FILA blows it and wrestling is not in the 2020 Olympics, then I would love to see Stan and any other FILA board members surrender their Olympic medals in protest. I wonder what Stan feels about term limits?" I am a proponent of both term and age limits.
  17. Don Mog wrote, "Enlighten me, because everything I've read from every news source out there is that we were dropped and now have a chance to get back in. It wasn't merely a suggestion. It was voted upon and finalized. As of now wrestling is out in 2020. We are trying to get back in. Show me otherwise." This past February the IOC Executive Brd made the decision to cut the 26 core sports to 25 in the Oly. games starting in 2020. The IOC General Assembly in Buenos Aires this September must ratify the recommended 25 core sports, wrestling is not among the 25, but until ratified wrestling is still a core sport. If the Gen Assembly fails to ratify the 25; Wrestling remains a core sport in the Oly Games. At the same session, the IOC will fill one remaining sport in the 28 spots for 2020 and 2024. [Golf and Rugby 4 yr ago were voted to fill the 26 & 27 spots for 2016 & 2020]. In St Petersburg RUS this past May, the same IOC Exec Brd narrowed to 3 from 7, the sports eligible to fill this spot. The 3 are Wrestling, Squash and softball/baseball combo. Wrestling was voted in the 1st rd, squash & S/B were in subsequent voting. If the Gen Assembly ratifies the 25 core sports, then it will choose 1 among Wrest., squash, s/b to be included in 2020 & 2024.
  18. LkwdSteve wrote, "Absolutely correct! The language had been written. I can only imagine something more pressing in the countdown to Argentina. Triage, I suspect!" In the major sports any rules changes (proposed or implemented) are scrutinized by the media, print and TV. If there are changes in SCORING proposed, forget about it. Hours and hours of discussion will be forthcoming. Even the minor sports' changes are reported on. Except for wrestling. Clueing in wrestling fans, and the conduit to them, the media, is not even an afterthought it appears. Wrestling fans want to be educated. Comprehensively." Major sports are not facing a looming decision regarding its future in a matter of weeks. But the 1st "Athletes Questionnaire" was 1st posted on FILA's website roughly a yr ago. Each Federation was given a 'password' for each discipline and requested to submit a consensus set-of-rules. The working group met over last Thanksgiving weekend to hammer out the rules. Following the IOC's decision and the subsequent removal of FILA's President in February, an opportunity to broaden the changes to reflect the removal of constraints placed by FILA's previous leader was opened. The rules makers seized the opportunity to re-solicit the ideas of the worldwide wrestling community. As these new rules are put to practice adjustments are being made. Hopefully following Budapest the final touches can be put in place for the remainder of the quadrennial. I understand the personal @ FILA's hdqtrs priority of ensuring the wrestlers whose native language is Farsi, Azeri, Turkish, Georgian, Japanese, Bulgarian or Russian understand the adjustments before the wrestling fans. Don't you think if the National Federations felt it necessary to inform the fan base, they'd have better access?
  19. JasonBryant wrote, "I've NEVER seen time put back on the clock at an international event. Even when it's clear it should have, I have never seen the clock adjusted to a correct time." In order to protect the wrestler from ill-advised decisions by a coach and also to prevent coaches from using the challenge as a stalling tactic; the referees stop the match only once any action stops. For example, if "A" was awarded 1 pt for a 'pass-behind' in what his coach deemed was a 2pt TD; and hence threw the sponge while his wrestler "A" was in the midst of executing a gut-wrench, the referees should allow the action to continue. Wrestler "A" then reels off a series of 2- 2pt gut-wrenches. Wrestler "A" then agrees to the challenge. If the challenge is upheld; 1 pt is added to "A's" score, the sponge returned to the A's corner and no time readjustment required. Likewise, if "A" had "B" on her shoulders w/ the arm locked ready to throw a 5 pt 'Grand Amplitude' and "B's" coach throws the sponge because she thought A" poked her wrestler in the eye, the referee should not stop the match until after "A" has had a chance to complete the hold--which she does. After review it's confirmed 'A' did poke "B" in the eye. The points are removed, the sponge returned and time re-set. 49northwrestling's Chun/Kaladzinkaya is an example--a challenge doesn't require scoring. [it should be noted the U.S. coach threw the sponge after time had expired in this match and the score was correct on the scoreboard. Hence the challenge--by the rules--should've been denied, but was granted in order to give the wrestler her due time to decide who the best was, not the referee.] rossel3 wrote, "One of the more annoying features of international wrestling is the "challenge." Not as bad as the clinch (thankfully gone), but still a buzzkill. With a challenge, the match gets stopped, sometimes for 5 minutes, while technical minutia are debated. The fans are bored by it. The wrestlers are pacing, catching their breath. The end result is often confusing. And it happens ALL TOO FREQUENTLY. In short, crap like that just kills the excitement." Timely, today's WSJ has an article: "It's Not Baseball If you can't Hate the Umpire" [see attached] which has fans and managers calling for a wrestling like challenge system "to confirm or overturn close calls." Cumulative score has, as expected by the rules makers, lessened the # of challenges significantly. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 61210.html
  20. oldrules, it's all the more reason to challenge, since all of the time elapsed would have been put back on the clock if the challinge was successful
  21. JasonBryant wrote, "My entire point has been there should have been an official release about the pass behind situation, regardless if the wrestlers and coaches were "aware" of the "clarification." Absolutely correct! The language had been written. I can only imagine something more pressing in the countdown to Argentina. Triage, I suspect! JasonBryant wrote, "Well, the scoreboard wasn't updated to reflect the call. By the time they wished to challenge, it was "too late" as one person who was over there said. Confirm the call immediately. 12 seconds is a lot of time to waste, especially towards the end of the match. If the points would have been put up immediately, then there's time to assess and throw the brick." A wrestler has 5 seconds once the correct score is posted on the scoreboard to challenge or throw-the-brick. If the challenge is confirmed--the sponge is returned to the corner, the score is corrected and the clock returned to the time of the start of the sequence of action in question.
  22. quanon wrote, "In that case, there are significant mistakes in the published rules. When will the official rules be amended on the FILA site? Another question: there was originally some confusion over pushouts. If Wrestler A pushed Wrestler B out of bounds without attempting a scoring hold, some wanted B to score. Under the current rules, A should always score 1 point: 1 point goes "To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing position)." Is this still the way we should read this rule, or is there a more nuanced interpretation?" In Moscow this past May, the FILA Bureau & extraordinary congress [~130 member federations] needed to make a critical decision regarding the new rules. Some, mostly those in the camp of the past President who had resigned but was re-instated onto the Bureau by CAS [Council of Arbitration for Sport] and was campaigning to regain his Presidency; argued to wait until after Budapest to implement the new rules. He and his cohorts argued for all of the reasons argued here [interpretations, implementation, unintended consequences, referee training to name a few] it was necessary to wait. Others, myself being among the outspoken, argued: If we waited to make the promised changes, we'd damage wrestling's chances significantly. Fortunately or unfortunately, Karelin [newly installed FILA co-opted member] was on my side for immediate implementation and seated next to the past President. It was agreed, the new-rules would be implemented as soon possible, provided it didn't violate existing contracts for the local organizing committees. @ the Congress Medved--not usually funny--said in effect [wrestling vernacular varies widely]: What's the problem--it's now cumulative score, 2 x 3 minute periods, takedowns are worth more than push-outs and other position changes [assumed--it appears--to mean 'pass-behinds' & 'reversals']. Everything else is just noise. As long as the referees know how to read, it's no problem. Oops that may be a problem! Most everyone left Moscow under the expectation the World University Games [originally it resisted but was convinced to use the new rules], Jr World and Cadet World Championships to be events used to iron out the wrinkles before Budapest. In Budapest the wrestlers, coaches and referees will be fully apprised of the rules and the implementation. I trust the local organizing committee will install an instructional mechanism to inform the spectators. quanon wrote: "The distinction between the pass-behind and the takedown is this: if you take a man down, he has to be standing (this scores 2 points). If you "pass behind" him, he is already on the ground (this scores 1 point). For the purposes of scoring, since there are no reversals like in folkstyle, it doesn't matter whether the opponent has already gained control of you before you score on him. " More or less--All 4s is a better description than 'Ground'. It's my understanding the referees interpret "standing" to include the tripod position, as has been the case forever. This is consistent w/ a front headlock where wrestler A turns wrestler B to his/her back. If wrestler B is on his/her feet at the start of the throw, it may be scored 3 pts 'A'. If 'B' is on all 4s at the start of the turn, 'A' only 2 pts are awarded. In other words, this is scored the same as it has been. It has nothing to do w/ either offensive or defensive. quanon wrote: "I haven't seen the Gilman match, but whether Gilman initiated his own attack should not matter. If he gained control of a standing opponent, it should be 2. If he gained control of a grounded opponent, it should be 1. From the description (scoring from a high crotch) it sounds like the opponent did not have 3 supporting points on the ground, so it sounds like it should have scored 2." This remains my biggest concern--Will the referees of the world be able to make the distinction accordingly and consistently? Fortunately, the wrestler via the challenge has redress on the field of play like no other athlete in any other sport. The challenge is not sent up to the 'booth' for a decision as in the NFL [i always think is the 'Wizard of Oz' in the booth?]. Instead in intern'l wrestling the challenge engages the entire viewing audience in full view for all to see. It appears most of you must have missed the addition to the challenge process. The 'Jury of Appeal' now must render a decision 1st in any challenge, not only if the refereeing body disagrees as it had been. The only issue remains: Why didn't the coach challenge. There is absolutely no negative consequence for the coach to throw the sponge. Why? Because the referee must present the sponge to the wrestler to validate the challenge. This should be normal practice. The decision should be the wrestler's. Gilman should know better than anyone. He can decide of taking the risk that the 3 'Jury of Appeal' members see it his way. fullnelson wrote, "What if the NFL passed a rule that interceptions run back for touchdowns now only counted as 3 pts; how do you think the public, let alone the coaches/players, would react? This is what FILA has done!!!!!" I don't believe your analogy is accurate. FILA has increased the value of a takedown to 2 pts, all other position changes, penalties and push-outs stay 1 pt. It would be as if the NFL increased the value of a field goal to 4 pts, yet kept an extra-point @ 1 pt. Let me repeat for the last time, the 'pass-behind' has never been a takedown other than perhaps as a figment of imagination. Please review the rules for the past 50 years. I find it troubling that anyone who's wrestled, officiated or coached intern'l wrestling was not aware of what constitutes a takedown. The argument that in folkstyle it's 2 pts, doesn't fly. Nor does the argument--the fans in the USA think this is the way it should be--doesn't resonate. When we--R. Tucci, Doc Bennett and myself--constructed the instructional DVD for the referees courses, we anticipated the need to clarify the 'position change' 1 pt and the takedown 2 pts by using the 'reversal' example I described earlier. We didn't feel it necessary to clarify the TD from the 'pass-behind.' Perhaps, the local organizing committee in Budapest would do well to play the DVD before the sessions begin each day :?: Coach J wrote, "You can justify the dumbness of some of these rules all you want. Facts don't lie: wrestling is out of the Olympics and new fans aren't being won. Wake up, leadership...." Coach J, For your edification, wrestling is not out of the Olympics. On September 8th the Gen. Assembly of the IOC votes in Buenos Aires. We'll find out wrestling's role in the 2020 and 2024 Olympic Games at that time. Though you sound as if you may be wishing for wrestling's ouster so you have the satisfaction of saying I told you so; let's hope you're wrong! This is my last post at least until after Buenos Aires.
  23. quanon wrote, "So, my question is, what was the process for how this rules change came about? Who wanted it, and who made the decision to "interpret" the rules in this new way?" The Refereeing Commission in Kazan noted that the following: "To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him" was inadvertently moved to the 2 pt category and should've remained in the 1 pt category. It also mentioned that criteria still had "Fewest # of Cautions" trumping "Highest value of a hold" which also was corrected. oldrules wrote: "Yeah um, I am going to have to call bs. A good counter wrestler is not ill prepared, they are just taking advantage of a different skill set. So a good whizzer countering a single only gets one point. That is about as subjective and phucked up as it gets." A well executed whizzer more likely than not would either take an opponent from standing [tri-pod]to the mat or lift an opponent off the mat before returning him to his side or back in order to be successful, hence a 2 pt. TD. Sockobow wrote: "Stan: Was the Gilman match called correctly? Gilman got an angle off of the original shot then went to a high crotch of his own before the opponent bellied down and Gilman finished behind. Most American's thought it was a bad call. Was it a bad call or is it the rule we don't agree with? It is a very gray area because he didn't pass behind, he went to a counter high crotch....." Again, what I think doesn't matter; but I can assure you, I would've challenged. tirapell wrote, "Just wow. It must be nice up on that pedestal Stan... I just wish you'd spend less time bullsh!ting and more time listening to ONLY thing that can save a dying sport - FANS!" Thank you for your well thought-out, articulate comments. :roll:
  24. vhsalum wrote:" 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." Coach _J wrote: "Whether defensive or offensive (however you choose to define those terms), a takedown should be 2 points. The dumb is really starting to hurt at FILA...." A takedown--or what the world defines as a takedown--is worth 2 pts. The vast majority of the wrestlers, coaches, referees and fans in the world define a takedown as just that--taking someone from his/her feet to the mat--single-leg, dbl leg, foot sweep, front headlock from standing to the mat, fireman's carry, headlock, arm-throw etc. 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. 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." 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]. 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. oldrules wrote: "So wrestler A isn't very fast but he has a wicked front headlock/go behind combo and his strategy is to jockey for position and wait either for a poor shot or the head to present itself as a target and he scores off this tactic, why should he be penalized?" 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. On the other hand, this is not to suggest the front headlock is not a viable technique that can lead to a TD. If a determined wrestler gains control of his/her opponent by securing a front-headlock, takes him/her to the mat in the process of gaining control, he/she has earned a TD-2 pts. a.k.a. Dave Schultz. I trust the difference is clear. jstock wrote: "can't understand how Stan, a former world class competitor along with his peers can allow this BS to keep happening. Think of this as a monumental accomplishment. To screw up one of the oldest sports known to man...at least they can put that feather in their cap. I was hoping the new FILA pres would take charge and lead. Maybe he needs time ?" Interpretation of the rules is a function for the referees not the rules makers. The worldwide referees interpret and implement the rules. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant [in this case I agree, a takedown is significantly more difficult and risky to execute than a 'pass-behind,' 'reversal' or a 'push-out' and should be rewarded accordingly]. Worldwide wrestling has experienced an authoritarian rule maker who had no qualms about dictating the interpretation as well. It didn't work and was at the root of wrestling's problems. I'm confident the new FILA President won't repeat the same mistake. Think law makers not enforcers! When there's a problem, a wrestler always maintains the right to challenge and let the "Jury of Appeal" be the final arbiters.
  25. "Around the Rings reports": "A Turkish wrestler who medaled in London is facing a ban from competition after racist remarks on Twitter. International wrestling governing body FILA gave Riza Kayaalp a six-month ban, according to The Times of India, for remarks made online against Armenians and Greeks in late June." http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/ ... x?id=44164
  • Create New...