Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Escape point rule change'.
Found 1 result
The escape point has never made much sense to me. If you get taken down, why should you earn a point for transitioning from a disadvantageous position to a neutral position? It seems to me that people want to save lesser neutral wrestlers from wrestlers that are great on their feet. The usual response I get to the suggestion of removing the escape point is something like: "What about mat wrestlers, this will leave them without a realistic chance to compete at a high level". This objection is confused. Mat specialists can get all the time they want on top by scoring their own takedowns. You know, The same way Dake, Retherford, Cox, etc. get their time on the mat. The escape point awarded following takedowns goes against a cardinal rule in wrestling: You get what you earn. You didn't earn an advantageous position; therefore, you should get no points. Getting an escape point after being taken down seems as ridiculous as being awarded a point after successfully bellying down and clearing the arms/wrists after being turned with a tilt. Your opponent gets two to four points, and you get one. I don't think anyone would be in favor of that. Maybe in addition to eliminating the escape point, we could also get rid of the choice to go neutral between periods. Make each wrestler go top and bottom once. For the neutral challenged wrestlers, this is their chance to go to their bread and butter without having to go through the trouble of scoring their own takedown. Thoughts? Should we get rid of the escape point? Why or why not?