Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
newyorkwrestler

John Smith said we need to change folk rules

Recommended Posts

I just can't understand the love for the pushout.  I watched the trials and would have paid money to see if Dake could have finished the takedown against Cox.  Instead we get a pushout in place of a takedown being finished, or a takedown being defended, and/or a great scramble, and somehow that is considered entertaining and good for the sport.  

 

I get that those are the rules and Dake may have chosen the pushout over attempting to finish the takedown against a bigger and stronger opponent, but that bit of strategy (if that is what went through his mind) isn't as exciting to me as seeing how it would have played out. It isn't even as exciting to me as seeing him attempt to keep his opponent in bounds while trying to score.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't understand the love for the pushout.  I watched the trials and would have paid money to see if Dake could have finished the takedown against Cox.  Instead we get a pushout in place of a takedown being finished, or a takedown being defended, and/or a great scramble, and somehow that is considered entertaining and good for the sport.  

 

I just can't understand the hate for the pushout. I watched the 2014 NCAA Finals and I would have paid money to see if Howe or Perry could stay in bounds at all. Instead, we get a match of pushing eachother out of bounds repeatedly, with no stall calls and the only offensive maneuver deciding the match. 

 

Folkstyle is boring now because the refs let the wrestler back directly out of bounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2014 isn't 2016 Granbytroll.  I understand and even agree with what you say to an extent about the rules in the past but the rules have changed.  

 

You may be right Jaroslav; it would depend how the ref called it.  However, most refs using the current rules wouldn't allow you to "milk the clock by going out of bounds".  Again, that is an argument against past seasons rather than the current ruleset. 

 

You can argue that the pushout is good because it would help bring rules closer to freestyle.  Nobody can dispute that.  All of the other arguments make little sense to me though at this point.  The pushout isn't a magic bullet that makes the world a better place.  It is just another imperfect way to deal with going out of bounds.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently in folkstyle there is a penalty for fleeing the mat.  Right now in freestyle there is a reward for pushing your opponent out of bounds.  I am not sure that I agree that "if you want to see Dake finish take down in bounds against Cox, it will happen more often with a penalty for stepping out of bounds than without one".   There is a penalty in both cases only in one, there is an incentive to drive the action out of bounds with no attempt to finish the takedown.  So really, in which case is the takedown more likely to be finished?  

 

This dialogue goes nowhere though.  I have accepted that others see it differently and appreciate their point of view to an extent.  What is puzzling and makes me speak up is when fans swear there is an objective truth that the pushout fixes things and is automatically better than the current ruleset in folkstyle.  It is a matter of perspective. Furthermore, they refer to matches from past seasons under different rulesets to validate their point.

 

Hey, if you prefer the pushout, more power to you.  Just don't try to sell it for something it isn't or use evidence that is no longer up to date.  Just simply say, "I think the pushout is the best imperfect solution to the reality that the sport must have boundaries". I (and other pushout haters) really can't dispute your preference anymore than you can dispute ours.  

 

On a semi related note, the action was awesome.  I won't credit the rules like some others here.  I think it had more to do with the caliber of the athletes.  Nevertheless, there is no disputing it was fun to watch!      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how anyone could have watched last weekend's Trials and not thought that freestyle was the far superior style. It is much more pleasing to the eyes. Those matches would play much better to the non-wrestling fan. There is much more excitement and there is no freaking riding time. Mat wrestling (unless someone is scoring, ala Taylor, Sanderson, etc.) is freaking boring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently in folkstyle there is a penalty for fleeing the mat.  Right now in freestyle there is a reward for pushing your opponent out of bounds. 

in freestyle its technically not a pushout but also a penalty for fleeing the mat. 

 

but it's all 6 and one half dozen. maybe the rules could using tweaking but the stepout in folk this year was wildly inconsistent. the stepout in free may not be perfect but it's still an improvement over folk. 

 

much prefer having a clear out of bounds. step over it and get penalized. I don't like seeing refs constantly making judgement calls they way they currently have to in the NCAA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best rule in Freestyle is that if you point your butt at the edge it is called passivity.  The boundary line is a problem, but I like that in freestyle playing the edge and staying in bounds is penalized.  If guys stayed to the center the out of bounds does not matter as much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The viewer number for the Saturday broadcast of the Olympic Trials on NBCSN (168,000) is well below the #D1wrestle finals on ESPN (655,000). Not sure what if any conclusions to draw from this, but it is clear that Olympic trails failed to draw many of the "hardcore" NCAA wrestling fans. Can't assume that making wrestling more "exciting" with freestyle rules automatically generates gobs of new fans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grecos' problem is that very few throws happen at high level. And for a casual viewer this makes the sport boring. I competed mainly in greco, and even I know that most moves are gut wrenches. Greco just isn't as exciting to view as freestyle.

 

UWW bringing back the possibility of slips has helped to sport a bit, but then again, the slips should not have been taken away in the first place. 

 

The stupidity of greco is that the ONE move that no casual viewer undertands (gut wrenches) is the most likely move to happen on the mat.

 

Then there's the new rule that greco wrestlers have to defend on the mat with muscle power only. Why? No movement, no opening grips. Ok, more gut wrenches! Great!! More broken shoulders! More boring moves! Yay! \o/ 

 

The sport really doesn't show itself very well in tournaments. It seems that greco wrestlers know three moves: a gut wrench, a suplae and possibly a karelin lift. That's it.

 

UWW should take a good look at greco rules and think outside the box. Allow more moves, minimalize points for basic gut wrenches etc... Something.

I competed a few times in Greco in HS (very low level competition against aother guys that did not know any real Greco either) and I liked it, but I think it is boring to watch at the highest levels.  Throws are exciting but there are so few of them.  Very hard to tell for a fan which guy is being passive and should be forced into par terre.  Greco highlight reels are great but watching full length matches is tough.

There is already a grappling style with many fantastic throws at the highest and it is Judo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The viewer number for the Saturday broadcast of the Olympic Trials on NBCSN (168,000) is well below the #D1wrestle finals on ESPN (655,000). Not sure what if any conclusions to draw from this, but it is clear that Olympic trails failed to draw many of the "hardcore" NCAA wrestling fans. Can't assume that making wrestling more "exciting" with freestyle rules automatically generates gobs of new fans.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

well It would def be appealing to outsiders of the sport by far. I don't think we should strive for the UFC model, but rather the golf/tennis model when it comes to fanbase. furthermore, yes sadly most ncaa fans stop caring about wrestling beyond college. I think that has less to do with styles and more to do with college loyalty and the easy access to watching NCAA as well as wrestlign media hyping it up more than anything. it is similiar to how college lacrosee is popular but no one pays attention to the professional circuit.  the style difference does present an issue to uneducated fans that might tune in though, that is correct. It is our job and the medias to educate these people so they wil continue to focus on wrestling outside of march. a last point is that ESPN is much more popualr channel than NBCSN 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rule changes don't automatically generate fans. That's a farce. You could have the most exciting sport in the world, but if it's not properly marketed, viewership will forever be limited.

 

More excitement does translate to sustained viewership once word gets out, though. It's just that word has to get out first. The OTT marketing pales in comparison to NCAAs, which are promoted to some degree (often to a great degree) by dozens of regionally dispersed participating schools with thousands of "target" alumni each.

 

In other words, viewership number comparisons right now mean nothing. The only way to know whether a style change will result in increased viewership is to make the change where the sport is marketed most (D1 college) and allow several years for whatever benefit there may be to accrue (I'd say minimum of five years).

 

One way to try it out would be to take a decently marketed event with a lot of history and switch to freestyle for a few years. This ensures that style is the only major change in variables and isolates causation to that variable best. The event that stands out as a trial opportunity is the All-Star event, which is meaningless from a D1 record perspective, guarantees elite talent participation (and therefore, more often than not, elite school co-promotion), and has plenty of history to refer to as a benchmark.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B1G conference tournament (NCAA qualifier) attendance at CHA vs OTT attendance at CHA?

 

Again, venue is one factor but overall marketing, time of year, rooting interest (believe it or not, people root harder for their school than for their country in most sports), and many other factors get in the way of a fruitful comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN is in more households, about 94 million households compared to about 82 million for NBC Sports, but that difference is not an excuse for nearly 1/4 of the viewers, it's like I'm on sherdog and reading excuses on why the UFC numbers were so low - "but Mayweather was also fighting", "there was college football on at the same time", "it was opening weekend for Avengers: Age of Ultron".

 

 

Most people that wrestled didn't compete in college, many didn't even attend a college with a team (if they did go to college) or their college team is long dead.  Many wrestlers did wrestle FS, even gr, growing up, some areas of the country there is next to nothing for folk until high school yet there are FS & GR weekend tournaments. 

USA Wrestling should be able to tap into "wrestlers" in general but the fact is they rarely have been successful at it.  NCAA isn't much better, compared to the number of former high school wrestlers, the attendance numbers for duals, regular season tournaments and most conference tournaments is poor (granted, the same goes for the vast majority of college sports but it still sucks).

For whatever reason, most former wrestlers just don't care and if former participants don't care I don't know how you get nonparticipants to care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN is in more households, about 94 million households compared to about 82 million for NBC Sports, but that difference is not an excuse for nearly 1/4 of the viewers, it's like I'm on sherdog and reading excuses on why the UFC numbers were so low - "but Mayweather was also fighting", "there was college football on at the same time", "it was opening weekend for Avengers: Age of Ultron".

 

 

Not at all apples to apples.

 

ESPN may reach more households, but the vast majority of those households received zero marketing for the OTT. Many more of those households got marketed to  for NCAAs because it wasn't just ESPN doing the marketing, it was hundreds of colleges across America and tens of thousands of alumni who care about their college's sports receiving the marketing.

 

Youtube is the single biggest video "network" in the Western world. It has wreslting on it. The crickets chirp. Why? It reaches SO many more households than even ESPN....

 

Distribution channel is only meaningful with proper marketing.

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares about the difference in viewership between NCAAs or OTTs.  The only viewership relevant question is if more people will tune in to NCAAs if they wrestle FS in college.  The answer is no.  People aren't tuning in because of a rules change. 

 

The thread title refers to John Smith.  Smith isn't advocating a change to get TV viewers.  He's advocating a change so the US can win FS matches.  This is the only reason to consider changing.  TV viewership will sit about the same no matter what.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, venue is one factor but overall marketing, time of year, rooting interest (believe it or not, people root harder for their school than for their country in most sports), and many other factors get in the way of a fruitful comparison.

That's why I mentioned it this year. Iowa fans had quite a few Hawks to root for, and turn out for good wrestling anyway, as well as being close to many relative wrestling hotbeds. An OTT in Vegas in June/July vs B1G at CHA wouldn't be a fair comparison.

 

Seemed to have been marketed well, time of year close to same (hence Snyder at hwt for OSU). Yes, people root for their school - because of history. Do to folkstyle what the rule changes did to FS and no history exists. Each year, or at least every four years, a new form of wrestling rules apear that render experience even one decade ago worthless in understanding and following from a fan view (one not actively following and assimilating the changes).

 

This would seem to have been the best possible year and location for OTT attendance to be high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly most ncaa fans stop caring about wrestling beyond college. I think that has less to do with styles and more to do with college loyalty and the easy access to watching NCAA as well as wrestlign media hyping it up more than anything. it is similiar to how college lacrosee is popular but no one pays attention to the professional circuit.

I was just thinking of the parallels with lacrosse. good call. 

 

viewership and attendance would be a wash at worst. people who absolutely love watching mat wrestling and can't imagine wrestling without spiral rides and crab rides will be lost. but everyone else who enjoys wrestling will stay, and maybe a few more fans will be picked up along the way. 

 

and then our student athletes will be better prepared to continue their athletic careers upon graduation. it would be a resounding success for everyone. a real win win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all apples to apples.

 

ESPN may reach more households, but the vast majority of those households received zero marketing for the OTT. Many more of those households got marketed to  for NCAAs because it wasn't just ESPN doing the marketing, it was hundreds of colleges across America and tens of thousands of alumni who care about their college's sports receiving the marketing.

 

Youtube is the single biggest video "network" in the Western world. It has wreslting on it. The crickets chirp. Why? It reaches SO many more households than even ESPN....

 

Distribution channel is only meaningful with proper marketing.

So, you're saying that former wrestlers don't know freestyle & greco are going on in the spring?

 

Hundreds of colleges marketing the NCAAs?  There aren't even 80 schools fielding teams.  Heck, some students don't even realize their school has a wrestling team.  Many schools can't even get 300 people to a home dual, I doubt people are paying attention to any marketing of wrestling regardless of style.

 

 

Obviously, marketing matters.  NBC did little to market the event outside of their own sports channel and unfortunately they'll probably do the same this summer. 

Grassroots is the only hope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what I'm saying is that people like college wrestling because of the "college" as much as because of the "wrestling". Style, part of the "wrestling", is a secondary consideration. Freestyle is almost purely about wrestling only. That alone makes the comparison apples to, dare I say, oranges (with apologies to the esteemed and uniquely eloquent coach Dresser).

Edited by wrestlingnerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uniform change is the first to step in marketability. when we have an attractive uniform more people will watch. This is prob more important than style. Headgear needs to go too, it looks weird. sports are about aesthetics now, just look at how many people buy hockey, nfl, and FIFA uniforms because they look cool. next i think comes style, free creates much more action, if you show people crazy scrambles or exciting throws that have don't know a thing about wrestling they tend to think its exciting and are intrigued, but then when you show them a full college match they say its boring and lose interest. freestyle will vastly help fix this problem. i also think the tournament format is the best way to go, it creates more excitement than dual meets by far. we should also not discourage gambling, any sport with a lot of gambling grows in popularity. I think UWW attemps at creating a grand prix system is brilliant. over time i hope this means huge cash prizes. we cant have the centerpeice of our sport take place every 4 years, or only have 1 important vent per year in the WC. some people think creating clubs and following a soccer model is the best way, but i disagree, i think that only works because soccer is so massively popular. again copying golf and tennis is the best way to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what I'm saying is that people like college wrestling because of the "college" as much as because of the "wrestling". Style, part of the "wrestling", is a secondary consideration. Freestyle is almost purely about wrestling only. That alone makes the comparison apples to, dare I say, oranges (with apologies to the esteemed and uniquely eloquent coach Dresser).

Wha are you basing this on, that people watch because it is a college sport first and style is secondary?  What about all the wrestlers that competed in FS & GR, why aren't they tuning in? Or the people that didn't wrestle in college, why do any of them watch NCAA wrestling?

Edited by OBJoeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...