Jump to content
treep2000

Criteria vs. Overtime - what's better?

Recommended Posts

Freestyle uses criteria.  Folk uses overtime.  (And yes, I think there's another thread somewhere on this).

Both have pros and cons.  I think I'm leaning towards criteria to being superior (i.e. last to score in event of a tie) to overtime.  

Thoughts from the very knowledgeable and respected group of fellow like-minded folks? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be determined by who has the ugliest girlfriend.

 

Hear me out. The dude already has an ugly girlfriend, and there are two equal wrestlers. Just give it to the poor SOB. He's suffering already. The other guy can go drown his sorrows with his hotter girlfriend. Maybe even get some good pity sex, if he plays his cards right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LJB said:

arguments will always lean towards personal bias between stall fest and real styles...

but, what can not be argued is that criteria promotes action whereas OT does not...

 

I like watching freestyle best and enjoyed competing in freestyle more, but I still like the idea of OT. I agree you can’t argue that criteria creates great action at the end of a match... I just can’t get over the fact that a world championship could be decided based on who was put on the shot clock last. 
 

Maybe there is a way to have the best of both... have a one minute sudden victory period and if no one scores, the winner is declared based on criteria? I know it doesn’t solve the problem of a tie match, but it at least gives a whole minute for someone to score to break the tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, treep2000 said:

6 and 7 years ago respectively... Nice

The articles provided insight.  There is a learning curve for tracking criteria during the match.  I believe it forces more end-of-match action than does the rest-and-wait for overtime approach.  It would be interesting to learn how many matches JB has won versus lost on criteria.  Several of his losses have been on criteria and he is on record of not being a fan of that.  If sticking with overtime, I like the idea of a single, unlimited period.  Some matches, it feels like wrestlers are waiting for the second and third period to win on escapes and rideouts.  I want to see step-out and passivity rules added to the neutral position in folkstyle.  Give me action.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

I like watching freestyle best and enjoyed competing in freestyle more, but I still like the idea of OT. I agree you can’t argue that criteria creates great action at the end of a match... I just can’t get over the fact that a world championship could be decided based on who was put on the shot clock last. 
 

Maybe there is a way to have the best of both... have a one minute sudden victory period and if no one scores, the winner is declared based on criteria? I know it doesn’t solve the problem of a tie match, but it at least gives a whole minute for someone to score to break the tie.

in regards to who was put on the shot clock last... if you can't score an offensive point in 6 minutes, how will an additional 1 make any difference?

this phantom "problem" of a tied match is a purely fabricated issue based on semantics and mores... it is a made up "problem"... a total non-issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get not being receptive to the idea of criteria but the product is much more marketable with criteria. I think it would help if UWW would add an extra criteria point like the NCAA does in dual meets or when criteria is used in a match that goes to the second set of ride outs. A lot of the objections to criteria revolve around the idea that someone wins even though the score is tied, and the whole beauty of criteria is that it obliterates ties, whereas OT extends the amount of time a score is tied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LJB said:

in regards to who was put on the shot clock last... if you can't score an offensive point in 6 minutes, how will an additional 1 make any difference?

this phantom "problem" of a tied match is a purely fabricated issue based on semantics and mores... it is a made up "problem"... a total non-issue

The problem is if you and I wrestled and we each scored one takedown, who demonstrated they were the better wrestler? Why is the last takedown better than the first? That is the part that is purely fabricated. Like I said, I agree criteria is fun to watch, but it feels a lot better to see a guy earn a win on an offensive point rather than a tie breaker criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

The problem is if you and I wrestled and we each scored one takedown, who demonstrated they were the better wrestler? Why is the last takedown better than the first? That is the part that is purely fabricated. Like I said, I agree criteria is fun to watch, but it feels a lot better to see a guy earn a win on an offensive point rather than a tie breaker criteria.

you have now changed the argument from shot clocks to last score...

the last score is a bit arbitrary, but, known... keep scoring and it is yet another non-issue...

 

do you really feel a ride out point is an offensive point?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jross said:

...It would be interesting to learn how many matches JB has won versus lost on criteria.  Several of his losses have been on criteria and he is on record of not being a fan of that...

I crawled JB's website to find instances where the match ended in a tie.  It looks like he won 8 and lost 4 by criteria.  

http://www.jordanburroughs.com/wins

  • 19.) WIN Ricardo Roberty (Venezuela), 2-1, 1-1
  • 27.) WIN Nick Marable (USA), 1-0, 1-1
  • 38.) WIN Matt Gentry (Canada), 2-1, 1-1
  • 45.) WIN Ali Shabanau (Belarus), 1-1, 5-0
  • 55.) WIN Saba Khubezhty (Russia), 1-1, 5-0, 7-3 -- i assume the 1-1 was a criteria loss and JB won the next two 
  • 58.) WIN Kyle Dake (Titan Mercury), 9-6 OT -- OT used rather than criteria?
  • LOSS Nick Marable (USA), 4-4
  • 131) WIN Jordan BURROUGHS (USA) Jumber Kvelashvili (Georgia), 2-2
  • 137) WIN Jordan BURROUGHS (USA) PP Kyle Dake Ithaca, NY (TMWC), 2-2
  • LOSS Frank Chamizo (ITALY) 10 - 10
  • LOSS Kyle Dake (TMWC) 6-6
  • 163) WIN JORDAN BURROUGHS (USA) dec Frank Chamizo (Italy) Dec 4-4

JB's website shows 186 wins and some included the best 2 of 3 matches.  I counted ~245 total matches which means roughly 5% (12) were decided by criteria.  Would having OT help JB in the 4 he lost while retaining the 8 he won by criteria?  If there was OT, would JB have more than 12 matches that extended into it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

The problem is if you and I wrestled and we each scored one takedown, who demonstrated they were the better wrestler? Why is the last takedown better than the first? That is the part that is purely fabricated. Like I said, I agree criteria is fun to watch, but it feels a lot better to see a guy earn a win on an offensive point rather than a tie breaker criteria.

This is where passivity and step outs help.  If I score the last take down and then stall, I will get hit with passivity and put on the shot clock.  If I don't score, then you get a point.  If we are both taking continuous action and neither can score, I'm okay with the last scorer winning.  It is part of the game and the rule influences action from both participants.  

As a football fan, I watched the KC Chiefs play the Patriots in the NFL playoffs last season.  Everyone knew that whichever team got the ball first in overtime would win the game.  I was disappointed that the Patriots scored and the Chiefs didn't get a chance to score as well.  But those are the rules.  The KC QB and Coach took accountability and stated that if they do not like it, they had better score more points during regulation and not get into that situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jross said:

I crawled JB's website to find instances where the match ended in a tie.  It looks like he won 8 and lost 4 by criteria.  

http://www.jordanburroughs.com/wins

  • 19.) WIN Ricardo Roberty (Venezuela), 2-1, 1-1
  • 27.) WIN Nick Marable (USA), 1-0, 1-1
  • 38.) WIN Matt Gentry (Canada), 2-1, 1-1
  • 45.) WIN Ali Shabanau (Belarus), 1-1, 5-0
  • 55.) WIN Saba Khubezhty (Russia), 1-1, 5-0, 7-3 -- i assume the 1-1 was a criteria loss and JB won the next two 
  • 58.) WIN Kyle Dake (Titan Mercury), 9-6 OT -- OT used rather than criteria?
  • LOSS Nick Marable (USA), 4-4
  • 131) WIN Jordan BURROUGHS (USA) Jumber Kvelashvili (Georgia), 2-2
  • 137) WIN Jordan BURROUGHS (USA) PP Kyle Dake Ithaca, NY (TMWC), 2-2
  • LOSS Frank Chamizo (ITALY) 10 - 10
  • LOSS Kyle Dake (TMWC) 6-6
  • 163) WIN JORDAN BURROUGHS (USA) dec Frank Chamizo (Italy) Dec 4-4

JB's website shows 186 wins and some included the best 2 of 3 matches.  I counted ~245 total matches which means roughly 5% (12) were decided by criteria.  Would having OT help JB in the 4 he lost while retaining the 8 he won by criteria?  If there was OT, would JB have more than 12 matches that extended into it?  

Those 2-1, 1-1 matches were in the old best of 3 periods (not matches), so 2-1, 1-1 is one win, not two. OT was used at U.S. World Team Trials in 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my problem with criteria:  Refs are specifically designated to put someone on the clock if there is no score, regardless of how much action is going or or if one guy has and advantage or not.  If things stay somewhat consistent, they will reverse the call in the 2nd period 10/10 times.  This is purely subjective and will almost always put one guy's fate in the ref's hands if it is gonna come to criteria.  To me, this isnt fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criteria was put in place in part to eliminate the marathon OT session in the international tournaments where some believed more injuries could occur and the winner could be in a stamina disadvantage the following round vs. a fresher opponent.  I’d much rather see OT, but also don’t want to see good wrestlers not able to preform at their peak.  Where that line gets drawn I’m not sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, olddirty said:

Here is my problem with criteria:  Refs are specifically designated to put someone on the clock if there is no score, regardless of how much action is going or or if one guy has and advantage or not.  If things stay somewhat consistent, they will reverse the call in the 2nd period 10/10 times.  This is purely subjective and will almost always put one guy's fate in the ref's hands if it is gonna come to criteria.  To me, this isnt fair. 

Only comes down to shot clock if no one scores the whole match though. So, I think you problem is more with the shot clock rule rather than criteria. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first minute of overtime really isn’t bad. The problem with it  is usually when the match is tied the wrestlers seem to “wait” for OT rather than take the risk in regulation. With Criteria someone is always losing so someone should be looking to score at all times  

 

When we start with the ride outs and who rode who for longer etc. it isn’t promoting action it really is promoting stalling. Think about in the situation how many times guys drop to the leg and hold on. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

Maybe there is a way to have the best of both... have a one minute sudden victory period and if no one scores, the winner is declared based on criteria? I know it doesn’t solve the problem of a tie match, but it at least gives a whole minute for someone to score to break the tie.

This was my first thought, as well. I like the first OT (hate ride outs), and it would be clear who had criteria going in so there wouldn't be any confusion at the end of the match. But they may also cause problems of the person with criteria not engaging or taking any risks (though we see that anyways with some guys happy to go to ride outs). The refs would have to be willing to call stalling in OT, even twice if necessary.

3 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Not necessarily a fan of this idea, but that match was far more entertaining than any of their matches since. Which would easily qualify for the list of worst college matches this century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, olddirty said:

Here is my problem with criteria:  Refs are specifically designated to put someone on the clock if there is no score, regardless of how much action is going or or if one guy has and advantage or not.  If things stay somewhat consistent, they will reverse the call in the 2nd period 10/10 times.  This is purely subjective and will almost always put one guy's fate in the ref's hands if it is gonna come to criteria.  To me, this isnt fair. 

This situation always plays out with plenty of time on the clock.   Sure, the one who gets put on the clock last is at a disadvantage - but in a match where he or she didn't score a point.  A reasonable person can't cry foul if they didn't score a point in 6 minutes of wrestling.  At any rate, I can't recall a match being decided like that.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...