Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JHRoseWrestling

3 Point Takedown: It is time.

Recommended Posts

It is time for NCAA wrestling to reward the takedown with 3 points. There are 2 specific and overwhelming reasons to make this transition:

 

1. A 3 point takedown will provide a more deserving winner.

 

2. More exciting matches with greater reward for technical proficiency.

 

On reason 1, it is too difficult to accumulate points with a net 1-point takedown after the escape. With the evolution of the rules including the increase in value of near fall to 4 points, standing wrestling is deemphasized as three takedowns ending in a rideout to end a period is matched with a cross-wrist roll that will never culminate in a pin. I held off on posting this until after observing a full season of the new near fall points, I am convinced this disparity is too large.

 

On reason 2, with the new out of bounds interpretations, we are getting into the stall call sequence faster as well. With a stall point worth the same as the net takedown\escape advantage, we are rewarding tactical wrestling and not activity, which is counter intuitive to the purpose of calling stalling in the first place.

 

I can go on and on, but I will leave you with a final thought:

 

A 3 point takedown will increase activity on top as well. Two reasons:

3 points for a takedown with effectively decrease the value of the single point for riding time. This will cut down on the stall ride as an attempt to accumulate RT which currently has the same net value of a takedown\escape.

Second, if we stick with a two point reversal,the top wrestler can safely take more risk from the top position without the fear of the takedown being wiped clean by giving up a reversal.

 

As always, thanks for listening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and well said.  I think we should do this, or add a 1 pt. push out rule.  Both will 100% make wrestling more exciting.  If we think long term for USA wrestling, this will ultimately help us in the international styles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have instituted a 3 point takedown starting this year. 

 

The best example from last year?

 

The NCAA Final between Nashon Garrett and Cory Clark.  Nashon controls the entire match, Clark does almost nothing the entire match and only scores on 5 escapes and 2 stalling points(1 was bs).

Edited by CA_Wrestler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a three point takedown rule the top man stalling will decrease, with that being said, the stalling from neutral will increase exponentially. A portion of stalling has always been from the wrestler who gets ahead early and stalls his way to victory. So would you rather see stalling from mat wrestling or from neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a three point takedown rule the top man stalling will decrease, with that being said, the stalling from neutral will increase exponentially. A portion of stalling has always been from the wrestler who gets ahead early and stalls his way to victory. So would you rather see stalling from mat wrestling or from neutral.

 

What?  You have no way to quantifiably or even anecdotally say that stalling will increase in neutral.  AT ALL.  If even anything it will decrease stalling on the feet.  I'm not sure if you've noticed, but kids are trying to score points.  And I'll give the officials a little credit here, but stalling is being called more forcibly since the 80s.  Not as forcibly as I would prefer, but still much better.  

 

Plus, with a 3 point takedown, and the four point nearfall, you will see the comebacks we all love.  Coupled with the increase in stalling calls, and you have a better product.  Since the four point nearfall, we've seen an EXPONENTIAL increase in scoring on top.  The evidence points that wrestling will increase when you increase the point value, not vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you increase point values for scoring opportunities then yes, more points will be scored (no brainer) but that doesn't alone make the overall wrestling product better.  With a three point takedown rule you will still have the one takedown matches but instead the final score will be 4-2 ( or 4-3 if they use the extra stall point they now have available to them) instead of 3-2. Its not like adding point values will increase a wrestlers motivation to wrestle. Some wrestlers are going to stand around and stall wether you make a takedown worth 3 points or 10 points. The reward is greater but so is the risk. Again, for some wrestlers the greater the lead in the 3rd the more they stall so instead of getting a stall warning and giving up one stall point, they can now give up two stall points and still be ahead. The point system already has a value that works, the problem is the wrestlers don't wrestle in some cases. The best thing for wrestling as far as action goes is for the refs to call stalling more.

 

Instead of rewarding the wrestlers that do wrestle you need to penalize the wrestlers that don't.

Edited by unbiased

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbiased-

 

I'm not talking about putting a bigger number on the scoreboard.  I am talking about the proportional value of scores.  We have a recent example in freestyle.  In 2013, the proportional value of takedowns was increased versus the value of exposure (from 1:2 to 1:1), stepouts (1:1 to 2:1), and feet too back (from 1:3 to 1:2).  We have not seen inactivity increse exponentally in freestyle.  Although it may be a reach to cross styles to refute your point, this is a great example of the change in the proportional vaule of scores creating a better product on the mat and a more deserving winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really sounds like you want to make TDs more important than a tilt. Kind of like you didn't think Hall should have lost and you're trying to come up with rules to prevent what you are clearly saying is an unjust result. If you cannot win within the rules change them? Is that what it is?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JHRoseWrestilng,

 

Would you agree that a passivity in Freestyle is called more prevalently than stalling is called in Folkstyle? If so I would say that might be a big factor in your Freestyle number ratios not dropping.

Edited by unbiased

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really sounds like you want to make TDs more important than a tilt. Kind of like you didn't think Hall should have lost and you're trying to come up with rules to prevent what you are clearly saying is an unjust result. If you cannot win within the rules change them? Is that what it is?  

 

Zebra,

 

I saw the Hall match and it was fresh on my mind when I gave the example.  Hall didn't deserve to win.  He stepped on the line and lost a correctly scored match under the rules.  There is nothing to suggest under a different rule set a tactically excuted match by the opposing wrestler would yield a different result.

 

I am not some belligerent fanboy.  Read the post.  If it doesn't have merit, I am excited to learn from you.  Don't be a jerk, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JHRoseWrestilng,

 

Would you agree that a passivity in Freestyle is called more prevalently than stalling is called in Folkstyle? If so I would say that might be a big factor in your Freestyle number ratios not dropping.

Hey Unbiased,

 

Those ratios are just point values, not frequence of occurances, if I understand your question correct.

 

Passivity and stalling are two entirely different things philosophically, which is why I chose to say we didn't see a decrease in activity (which is what stalling legislates).  Passitivity has a "ring-generalship" component that we don't value as much in folkstyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 point takedown I would be for.(Mark Hall told me to post that)

 

Don't like the pushout in College.  If you put it in, go all the way with back exposure and get rid of funk, etc.

The edge wrestling is great now but understand the frustration of guys not wrestling on the edge, most of it is funk and scramble stuff that a lot of fans enjoy.(Jesse Delgado told me to say this)

 

RT goes nowhere.  Get off the bottom.(Zain told me to say it)

 

And for those with a slightly extensive memory, the standing reversal stays too and should be 3 points, ha ha (David Taylor tweeted me and threatened me if I posted this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would your scoring relate to the origins of the sport?  What you describe is like watching a cat play with a mouse:  pin it down, let it, up, rinse and repeat.  I doubt that was the goal in wrestling, which was more like a lion taking down a wildebeest and going for the kill. 

 

I think Gabe Dean had nine or ten takedowns in the NYS Championship final yesterday before taking down his opponent to his back for the pin.  Perhaps he was working on his technique...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we can but as of right now the scoring system works for Folkstyle and it's not going to be the demise of wrestling. Wrestlers not wrestling will be the demise. If I would change anything about the scoring system it would be to make the reversal worth 3 as it is more difficult to obtain but I am not ready to cry foul as it is right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the goal. TD value needs to be a bit more separated from an escape. But I also agree that backs points and pinning are the main objectives.

 

I'd give 2.5 for TD

Stalling I'd give 0.5

Escape 1

 

Never going to happen, but that's the directional idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You only need one takedown to win a match. Take a guy down and let him up, you still win whether its worth 2 or 3. That will not improve wrestling. The push out doesn't encourage what wrestling is or what its meant to be, unless you favor sumo. The object of wrestling is to grab your opponent and take him to the mat to pin him. The push out is the exact opposite of that. Why should we reward a wrestler for throwing his opponent out of the area that we want both of them to stay in and actually wrestle. If a wrestler is going out on his own free will or is shot out by an opponent then its called stalling. Implement the rules already in place and wrestling will be more exciting.

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...