Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, spladle08 said:

I think he is saying "no" because any wrestling fan with common sense sees a 4-4 win and says "he won on criteria" not "is this a typo" .
But I guess if some person who was not interested in wrestling happened to see a score they would have to have it explained to them.
But I don't think their interest would be any greater if they say 5-4 on paper

I would think that 99% of the people would think, how could someone "win" by 4-4. The other 1% (who are avid fans) would understand, but even they would benefit from my reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would think that 99% of the people would think, how could someone "win" by 4-4. The other 1% (who are avid fans) would understand, but even they would benefit from my reform.
You think 99% of the wrestling community don't understand a criteria win in Freestyle?
That feels off.... But If we are just talking about the youth community or something maybe....
Anyways, neat estimation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spladle08 said:

You think 99% of the wrestling community don't understand a criteria win in Freestyle?
That feels off.... But If we are just talking about the youth community or something maybe....
Anyways, neat estimation

No-- I think 99% of the people are not in the wrestling community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, spladle08 said:
19 minutes ago, NJDan said:
No-- I think 99% of the people are not in the wrestling community. 

And you think they don't want to join the community because they'd have to understand the scoring?

No, I don't think that. But to the extent non-community members stop by and look at some results, a 4-4 victory would confuse them.  Even fans of folkstyle may be confused unless they also follow freestyle. Fans of other sports (like soccer, where 4-4 result is a TIE) may be confused

This is not freestyle's biggest problem, but it is an easy one to fix.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDan said:

Just "no." Are you a king? Why no?

 

Just "no" because I am not a king.  If I were a king I would not have to say "no" I'd just say "off with your head." ;)

So let's say two wrestler A & B first period one of them gets a takedown then the other gets a takedown so its 2-2 but let's make it 3-2 for A so there's no confusion, now B gets a push out which makes it 3-3 but we really need to add one so not confused so its now 3-4 or is it 4-3 ... we are now well into the second period its 11-11 so 11-12 and A gets a pushout  so its 12-12 but scored 13-12 and A's coach throws a brick questioning (no idea why he did that!) the score so we spend 20 minutes going back thru all the scoring and add on points to find out the score is correct so we give B a point and its now 13-13 but for the sake of the uneducated fan we will add another point and call it 13-14 ... there's 30 sec remaining in match and ...

Go back and look a Hutton's only college loss in his 3rd finals Jr year by criteria, no one is confused who won and lost, same with Sheets v Shultz final believe it was criteria #5, we all understand who won.  

Again if I were a king wouldn't needed to go thru this silly explanation cause you wouldn't be around to hear it, although I do agree in such case it'd be silly to say the king won by criteria.  :)

 

Share this post


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

Just "no" because I am not a king.  If I were a king I would not have to say "no" I'd just say "off with your head." ;)

So let's say two wrestler A & B first period one of them gets a takedown then the other gets a takedown so its 2-2 but let's make it 3-2 for A so there's no confusion, now B gets a push out which makes it 3-3 but we really need to add one so not confused so its now 3-4 or is it 4-3 ... we are now well into the second period its 11-11 so 11-12 and A gets a pushout  so its 12-12 but scored 13-12 and A's coach throws a brick questioning (no idea why he did that!) the score so we spend 20 minutes going back thru all the scoring and add on points to find out the score is correct so we give B a point and its now 13-13 but for the sake of the uneducated fan we will add another point and call it 13-14 ... there's 30 sec remaining in match and ...

Go back and look a Hutton's only college loss in his 3rd finals Jr year by criteria, no one is confused who won and lost, same with Sheets v Shultz final believe it was criteria #5, we all understand who won.  

Again if I were a king wouldn't needed to go thru this silly explanation cause you wouldn't be around to hear it, although I do agree in such case it'd be silly to say the king won by criteria.  :)

 

You'd be a bad king as you fail to comprehend. I am not saying that a point would be added to the criteria-leader DURING the match. No, when the match ends with a tie score, the criteria winner would be awarded on point (call it a criteria point) so he would look like a winner on the final scoreboard. The score would be 5-4 (criteria).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to know a thing about criteria to know who is ahead. You just have to be able to recognize which wrestler has a line under his score. I'm with JB above. We are at the point where it's willful if you don't have any understanding of criteria.

There are confusing rules all across sport. How many rules in football are both more complex than criteria but also understood by most fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NJDan said:

You'd be a bad king as you fail to comprehend. I am not saying that a point would be added to the criteria-leader DURING the match. No, when the match ends with a tie score, the criteria winner would be awarded on point (call it a criteria point) so he would look like a winner on the final scoreboard. The score would be 5-4 (criteria).

 

If its so confusing at the end - Wrestler A won 4-4 by criteria - what the heck, who won, i can't figure it out!?  Then just think how much more confusing during the match - the score is 2-2 - wait a munite ... what ... who is ahead ... what if there were a fire or earthquake ... who would be declared the winner?  

Some "problems" don't need to be "fixed" and some aren't actually "problems."

I stand by my no:)

 

BTW: a good king would not say "off with your head" so it goes without saying I'm probably a bad king and thus headless you does not get to call me a "bad king."  ;)

Edited by ionel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any knowledgeable wrestling fan that has watched enough freestyle should agree criteria is far superior.

a casual or ignorant fan might push for sudden death and maybe it is considered for consumerism, but not sure what that makes Tom Ryan.  Guy can be a bit odd at times.

Share this post


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

Seriously, though

>One criteria: First Point Scored

>Add the point at the end if the score is tied

>Switch to Sudden Death for medal matches and/or "PPV" cards

 

If a goal is to make matches more exciting, last point scored makes more sense. 

And is also easier to remember 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 12:00 AM, JHRoseWrestling said:

Ok, I can't believe I am typing this.  You see, I love criteria.  I love the wrestling it rewards, and the wrestling it creates.  I love how it gives a feet to back action an advantage that is only surmountable in the event of a tie by another feet to back, or better yet a grand amplitude action.  I love the urgency it creates late in matches, where the tying action changes the winner.  Coupled with a firm penalty for stepping off the wrestling area, attacking for or fending off a match changing score has lead to some of the best action and exchanges in my lifetime of wrestling viewership.  And don't get me started on the alternative, two athletes avoiding risk in a silent agreement to watch a clock wind down and settle a match in a sudden death over time period.  I will die on the hill that criteria creates the best wrestling and correctly values the most dynamic actions.

So, it is with great pain that I recommend we return to sudden death overtime in event of a tie.  Our casual fanbase can't understand criteria and our die hard fanbase is divided.  Most of all, our untapped fanbase can't wrap their heads around criteria.  We can't effectively explain criteria to now-adult but once-active high school wrestlers before they put on folkstyle, the Red Sox, or even the NBA.  We have so little hope with the general, never-wrestling-affiliated sports fan it's not even worth discussing.

It is a sad moment for me to say all this.  I am recommending a huge concession of quality.  But I love this sport and want everyone to experience and enjoy watching as much as I do.  I guess there are some instances in life where you have to trade qualify for consumability.

You were exactly right in your extremely thoughtful first paragraph.  Hard stop after your die-on-the-hill sentence.  No need to go any further than that.

The current freestyle product is terrific and it seems to be doing far better in terms of acceptance than its sometimes embarrassing predecessors.  Don't mess with a (very) good thing and don't let the perfect be the enemy of that.  

Folk and free are different.  My sense is that most fans have room in their hearts for both, and that most of those who don't want to like free won't like it even if you add OT.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

If a goal is to make matches more exciting, last point scored makes more sense. 

And is also easier to remember 

Disagree. I am going to work a lot harder in the beginning of the match if I know going on the shot clock means potentially losing criteria, while the last point doesn't encourage any action additional to what would have already been happening.  Also never wrestled a match when I couldn't remember who scored first, and you use the underline.

Edited by GoNotQuietly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoNotQuietly said:

Disagree. I am going to work a lot harder in the beginning of the match if I know going on the shot clock means potentially losing criteria, while the last point doesn't encourage any action additional to what would have already been happening.  Also never wrestled a match when I couldn't remember who scored first, and you use the underline.

The beginning of the match will be more exciting, but the end won’t be, and exciting endings usually make for the most exciting overall matches IMO.   If criteria was first point scored, then that person will always have it so is more likely to be defensive at the end of the match.  If it’s last point scored then who has the criteria will change which will almost certainly lead to more action at the end of the match.

The remembering point was more for (non-diehard) fans.  Obviously the wrestlers will remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see how that would make it more exciting at the end.  Someone is always winning or losing at the end of the match and might be defensive. There is no way criteria gets rid of that unless you legitimately want "last point wins", which you obviously don't. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the first criteria (the highest value of holds). I don't mind the second criteria (the least amount of cautions). Both of those give a small indication of who the better wrestler was.

But the third criteria (the last technical point(s) scored) doesn't indicate anything. Changing it to first point wouldn't help either.  I know some argue that it shows who was working harder at the end, but idk that it always does.  Either way, someone is losing at the end and is trying to score. You might as well flip a coin.

...

I wonder what would happen if, say, the NFL adopted the same criteria: (1) most touchdowns, (2) least penalties, (3) last point(s) scored.  I think I'd feel the same; first two are okay, last one sucks.

Edited by wnywrestling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wnywrestling said:

I don't mind the first criteria (the highest value of holds). I don't mind the second criteria (the least amount of cautions). Both of those give a small indication of who the better wrestler was.

But the third criteria (the last technical point(s) scored) doesn't indicate anything. Changing it to first point wouldn't help either.  I know some argue that it shows who was working harder at the end, but idk that it always does.  Either way, someone is losing at the end and is trying to score. You might as well flip a coin.

...

I wonder what would happen if, say, the NFL adopted the same criteria: (1) most touchdowns, (2) least penalties, (3) last point(s) scored.  I think I'd feel the same; first two are okay, last one sucks.

NFL allows ties, we don't allow ties in wrestling.  A tie is like ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a good compromise would be to have the criteria loser go on a 30 second shot clock as an overtime like the OP suggested. I think that still keeps the excitement at the end of regulation (because they have incentive to score) and then just adds another exciting 30 seconds to get a clear winner. When I told my wife Taylor won 4-4, she was very confused and thought it was stupid to win with a tie score. However, she’s probably never going to be a casual fan either way so I think the excitement factor is more important than confusion factor (if that makes sense).  In other words, if it has to be one or the other, I’d vote criteria, but I think we can have the best of both worlds.

Edited by Eagle26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IronChef said:

There are no casual freestyle wrestling fans in the US.

That’s a fair point lol. I don’t think it should stop us from trying though. The Olympics are the one time wrestling can sneak into the mainstream media. And I think we should try to have a good product prepared. I remember watching Rulon and Karelin on NBC (I think?)... at the time I knew nothing about Greco. I was confused and didn’t even really understand why he won. If we have a better product, I do believe we can win over a few fans with today’s technology (ie the ease of streaming). For example, I know a guy who never wrestled but has Flo Racing or something like that and has watched a few wrestling events (because it’s free with his other subscription), and he has enjoyed them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, they have a tiebreak they use in the first period to break a 0-0 tie.  It's called the shot clock (actually, it's called the "activity period").  People seem okay with that.  But then they use a completely different tiebreak at the end (criteria). Why not just keep it consistent?

Edited by wnywrestling

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...