Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bigmik

Is it time to get rid of the escape point?

Recommended Posts

Serious questions to help me better frame the context of my responses:

* Is there a "harm" in adopting some of the Freestyle Elements into Folkstyle?

* Why is there such a push to "conserve" the current manifestation of Folkstyle?

 

I do believe, in my dark, sadistic, and twisted soul, that the concept of an escape, can be broken down into two types:

* Allowed escape (should be worth nothing)

* Unallowed escape (should be worth something)

 

If this means that we edge closer to freestyle rules, I'm personally OK with that.  Afterall, our current installment of Folkstyle looks much different than what it did 10, 20, 30, 40+ years ago.  I'm not saying I have all the answers, but am agreeing that the concept of the "escape" needs some attention, especially when the sheer dominance exerted by our younger wrestlers that are perfecting their stand up game is proving to be a winning formula, and by a LARGE margin.  (i.e. Snyder, Nolf, etc.).   

 

 

Personally I like Folkstyle the way it is. I feel a few tweaks here and there is no big deal and often times helps the sport.

Personally I feel that taking away the 1 point escape is a very bad idea overall.

I also don't think that theres really is a "fair" objective way to have allowed escapes.

 

Think about this.. a wrestler usually chooses bottom because he believes he can escape. By choosing bottom now, he essentially is giving the top man choice whether to wrestle top or neutral.

 

Another match time example would be this.

Wrestler A is on top and winning by 1 point with 10 seconds left in the match.

Theres a restart, and wrestler A says.. Hey Ref... I want to give my guy an "allowed escape".

Now they are neutral and wrestler B has no opportunity to score 1 point to move the match into over time.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about no escape points but net 1:30 RT gives you 1 point? Thus, bottom guy does have incentive to get out. Top guy has incentive to ride. But the incentive is a bit less and than before between the RT threshold being longer and no escape point awarded.

 

I picture more let ups happening. Less boring riding happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about no escape points but net 1:30 RT gives you 1 point? Thus, bottom guy does have incentive to get out. Top guy has incentive to ride. But the incentive is a bit less and than before between the RT threshold being longer and no escape point awarded.

 

I picture more let ups happening. Less boring riding happening.

 

So basically this gets lessens of the benefits/incentive of riding and working for a turn. I also lessens the incentive for a wrestler to try to work for an escape and either encourages stalling on bottom or only working for a reversal, which will easily be countered by just letting the man on bottom go. I couldn't possibly disagree more with this. The side effect of this would essentially turn folkstyle into freestyle.

Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time one demonstrates control, mastery, dominance, there should be points attached…even for an escape, earned or otherwise.

 

Slowly but surely, the entitlement mentality that left-wing liberals have pushed on our country for so many years is now infiltrating wrestling.   Actually, the movement started several years ago with the elimination of riding time in high school.  Not sure what the excuses were, but apparently they were very, very, important to the overall growth of the sport.  Then came the tilt where one can score back points for what many times seems like freestyle “exposure.”   Then, it progressed to the exciting top, bottom, neutral, defer, choices.  I have seen many fans on the edge of their bleacher just waiting to see what position the chooser will take.  It builds as the wrestler looks to his coach, the coach shrugs, the kid looks to the ref, the ref looks back and forth from coach to kid…finally a decision is made….defer…no wait….feet!

 

As many of you know, back in the day, if you chose top in the second period, you automatically went down in the third period.   Here’s the way I see it.  If you kept those standards today and you want to wrestle neutral in the second period, and you’re the bottom man, you need to escape and be rewarded with a point…and if you’re the top man, you need to let him go and give him his point...problem solved, you are now in your desired “neutral.”  Choice is pre-determined and the match moves a little quicker.  I still believe that no one should get a free up…just because (insert your rationale here).

 

Maybe he can’t be turned because he’s pretty good at defending those tactics yet he’s good at acting like he’s trying to get out but he really isn’t, knowing the top man will eventually get called for stalling.  This is where awarding more points for riding time becomes not only a weapon but an excellent motivator for the bottom man to be equally responsible for action that might lead to an escape or reverse to change his fortunes…or maybe during the process, he even gets put on his back.

 

Wrestling would be more exciting if more points were awarded for top man control.  Period.  If you’re on bottom and can’t change your fortunes, there’s probably a logical reason for that. It could be that you and/or your coach just aren’t very good at those methods, and therefore, you need to pay a consequence, not be rewarded.  Instead we have found a way to help the disadvantaged, hence, removing his motivation to create action and take risk.  Sound familiar?

 

It’s the high pitch whining of “income inequality” or wrestling inequality if you will.  Because the down guy can’t extricate himself from the bottom, even though the techniques are available for him to learn, the rules needed to change so he can have some equality.  Let’s just take the top man out of a situation of dominance and give the bottom guy a free chance on his feet.  The bottom man just has to look completely helpless, hapless, clueless, and we will make it better for him.  It’s the wussification of wrestling.

 

So we play to the whiners and complainers like we do to the other entities of our society.

 

For me, it’s sad to see lack of technique and knowledge rewarded and the wrestler in the position of advantage, mastery, control, or dominance penalized.  I’m old school. 

Edited by patmilkovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time one demonstrates control, mastery, dominance, there should be points attached…even for an escape, earned or otherwise.

 

Slowly but surely, the entitlement mentality that left-wing liberals have pushed on our country for so many years is now infiltrating wrestling.   Actually, the movement started several years ago with the elimination of riding time in high school.  Not sure what the excuses were, but apparently they were very, very, important to the overall growth of the sport.  Then came the tilt where one can score back points for what many times seems like freestyle “exposure.”   Then, it progressed to the exciting top, bottom, neutral, defer, choices.  I have seen many fans on the edge of their bleacher just waiting to see what position the chooser will take.  It builds as the wrestler looks to his coach, the coach shrugs, the kid looks to the ref, the ref looks back and forth from coach to kid…finally a decision is made….defer…no wait….feet!

 

As many of you know, back in the day, if you chose top in the second period, you automatically went down in the third period.   Here’s the way I see it.  If you kept those standards today and you want to wrestle neutral in the second period, and you’re the bottom man, you need to escape and be rewarded with a point…and if you’re the top man, you need to let him go and give him his point...problem solved, you are now in your desired “neutral.”  Choice is pre-determined and the match moves a little quicker.  I still believe that no one should get a free up…just because (insert your rationale here).

 

Maybe he can’t be turned because he’s pretty good at defending those tactics yet he’s good at acting like he’s trying to get out but he really isn’t, knowing the top man will eventually get called for stalling.  This is where awarding more points for riding time becomes not only a weapon but and excellent motivator for the bottom man to be equally responsible for action that might lead to an escape or reverse to change his fortunes…or maybe during the process, he even gets put on his back.

 

Wrestling would be more exciting if more points were awarded for top man control.  Period.  If you’re on bottom and can’t change your fortunes, there’s probably a logical reason for that. It could be that you and/or your coach just aren’t very good at those methods, and therefore, you need to pay a consequence, not be rewarded.  Instead we have found a way to help the disadvantaged, hence, removing his motivation to create action and take risk.  Sound familiar?

 

It’s the high pitch whining of “income inequality” or wrestling inequality if you will.  Because the down guy can’t extricate himself from the bottom, even though the techniques are available for him to learn, the rules needed to change so he can have some equality.  Let’s just take the top man out of a situation of dominance and give the bottom guy a free chance on his feet.  The bottom man just has to look completely helpless, hapless, clueless, and we will make it better for him.  It’s the wussification of wrestling.

 

So we play to the whiners and complainers like we do to the other entities of our society.

 

For me, it’s sad to see lack of technique and knowledge rewarded and the wrestler in the position of advantage, mastery, control, or dominance penalized.  I’m old school. 

 

I'm fairly new here so can somebody tell me if I'm reading a gimmick post or the sad rants of somebodies drunk uncle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth I don't think we should get rid of the escape point because Folkstyle is about control and scores on the mat (including escapes) are about demonstrating control or demonstrating your ability to escape your opponents control.  I don't want Folkstyle to evolve to just being about takedowns and nothing else, I like that there are multiple ways to be an elite wrestler depending on what you choose to become good at.  I just don't think it is a liberal plot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly new here so can somebody tell me if I'm reading a gimmick post or the sad rants of somebodies drunk uncle?

EDITED Pat Milkovich was a FOUR time NCAA finalist and 2 time champion. When he won his first title in 1972 he was the first freshman SINCE 1947 to win a title. Good post imo.

Edited by Gambatte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all realize that you don't have to provide ID to take a screen name, right? 

 

But regardless, my real question was whether it was a gimmick to randomly bring up politics out of nowhere or if that was a thing that poster just did because they honest to god think that there is a liberal conspiracy against escape points. 

Edited by ThatLogSchuteWasCarrying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

I agree that it should be better than a 2 for 1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting away from someone who was controlling you sounds like an advantage to me. Worthy of 1 point.

 

Yes, but what percent of the time is the bottom guy just released?  Guy didn't do squat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heil will win by more. Is that what you want?

 

Say what you want about Heil, but he knows how to win.  I am also confident that he could adjust if the Refs adjust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How anyone cant rationalize getting rid of 1 point escapes is out of their mind. Seriously this isnt freestyle. Trying to get out from buttom when I guy is on top of you trying to hold you down and turn you deserves a point.

 

I've always hated the idea of bringing wrestlers back to their feet after a few seconds on top in freestyle. The parts I do like about freestyle are the back exposure point system.

As for switching the freestyle I also hate the idea of that. I much prefer folkstyle and I'm sure there are many many wrestlers out there that prefer it too.

 

Yes, but often a guy didn't earn anything--he was released so the other guy could score more points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We ABSOLUTELY need to get rid of the escape point, or, introduce a "let up" rule. 

 

I keep thinking of Snyder and his matches.  If he takes a guy down 10 times in a match, the match is 20-9, until that final escape point is given.  In reality, Snyder just decimated whomever he "broke", and the score of 20-0 is MUCH more indicative of how badly Snyder destroyed the kid (and yes, I know it would be a 16-0 TF before it ever got to 20-0). 

 

Or... in this hypothetical, Snyder takes a guy down 5 times, and lets him up 5 times, it's 10-5.  Really?  Then, in this hypothetical, Snyder gets "Gadson'ed", 2TD and 4NF, and he's down 11-10 suddenly?  Snyder gets out from bottom, it's an 11-11 tie.  In my book, it should be 10-6 Snyder in this hypothetical.

 

For the "let up" rule (see also how Zain rides on top with free hands from time to time), the rider could motion that he's invoking the let up rule, and they whistle and go back to their feet.  Bottom guy cannot initiate, just the top guy in control.  And, it cannot be done without the ref conceding that the top rider has control (thus averting a "let up" while potentially being reversed or flipped). 

 

Agreed.  Letting a guy up shouldn't award the other a point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so let me ask you this. Two wrestlers each score a takedown. 1 wrestler Earned an escape by getting out from button. The other didn't and got ridden then entire time. Who wins this match? You can't be serious in believing that this was an even match.

 

I should be more accurate.  I think a release should award the bottom guy nothing, but if the bottom guy earns the escape I think this should be rewarded.  This said, this could be very difficult to Rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Milkovich was a three time NCAA finalist and 2 time champion. When he won his first title in 1972 he was, I believe, the first freshman to win a title. Freshman were not eligible prior to 1971. Good post imo.

 

4x. 1,1,2,2

 

Not first ever but first since 1947.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all realize that you don't have to provide ID to take a screen name, right?

 

But regardless, my real question was whether it was a gimmick to randomly bring up politics out of nowhere or if that was a thing that poster just did because they honest to god think that there is a liberal conspiracy against escape points.

Unless someone stole his account that is dfinitely his.

 

Also, he doesn't post very often, but when he does, it is often roughly as long as that post was. :)

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...