Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
quanon

1 point turns are still in the official rules

Recommended Posts

Unless I am mistaken, I have seen a ton of 1 point takedowns given at Russian nationals so far. Check out the 66 kg final. I have also seen it in almost every other match I have watched. Did the official rules go back to the 1 point takedown?

 

The Russians are doing what they want to do. The official rules are still 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sergei Beloglazov was interviewed today and voiced his preference for one point takedowns. Sounds like their coaches may have lobbied for it to be called that way. Below is an excerpt from that interview. The translation is from Google.

 

In the championship of Russia takedowns give one point, and by the rules of FILA - two points. What is the best?

 

Beloglazov: "Definitely one point. Russia's entire coaching body for such an option valuation. Otherwise just depreciate full two and three scoring action. The first day of the championship of Russia showed that with one point for takedowns contractions got very efficient. I also think that it is not necessary to stop the fight after two three-point shots of one of the wrestlers. It is impossible to deny the opponent a chance to fight back, then he will throw on five points?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of other points confuse me.

 

1) I thought that reversals were supposed to be worth one. I can't find anything about that in the rules, but I do find this, which makes me think that reversals are worth two:

 

2 points

- To the wrestler who brings his opponent to the ground by passing behind him, and while in this position holding him down with control (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or the head).

- To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him.

 

2) Wasn't there supposed to be something about wrestlers not being penalized for rolling over their own shoulders when turning their opponents? That still gives the defending wrestler two points, just like it used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty clear the Russians are going to use this event and its statistics to try to sway the decision-makers. Good thing for the U.S., we're going to do the same thing -- but have a LOT more statistics to look at with all of the junior events and below. Trackwrestling's provided good numbers in terms of scoring per match, etc. Those are types of stats the boys in Switzerland like to see.

 

I guess it's that American bravado in me, but I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a takedown to be worth more than a penalty point.

 

And as much as I admire the legacy and input Beloglazov has done for wrestling, he seems to contradict himself in his explanation of why one point compared to two, especially when defending the 3-point actions. It's almost as if he was a spokesman for the rules rather than commenting on them honestly.

 

One thing about the U.S. having so many wrestlers and good competitions during the summer, we'll have a lot of data to support the mostly-North American point of view. I think most Canadians like the two point TD's, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it's that American bravado in me, but I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a takedown to be worth more than a penalty point.

 

Doesn't have anything to do with that. If a takedown is one and a throw is three, a throw is worth three times as much as a takedown. If a takedown is two and a throw is three, then throws are significantly diminished in importance. Americans generally don't care, but the rest of the world certainly does, and I'm sure that many agree with Beloglazov and think that the new rules are out of balance for that reason.

 

To address this, I tried to lobby for all throws to be worth five (and, if people still demanded that there had to be a distinction between 3- and 5-point throws, for 5-pointers to result in an instant fall), but as far as I know, the idea gained no traction.

 

(note: even if takedowns were worth two and throws were worth five, throws would still have less relative value than they did according to the old 1/3 split)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it's that American bravado in me, but I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a takedown to be worth more than a penalty point.

 

Doesn't have anything to do with that. If a takedown is one and a throw is three, a throw is worth three times as much as a takedown. If a takedown is two and a throw is three, then throws are significantly diminished in importance. Americans generally don't care, but the rest of the world certainly does, and I'm sure that many agree with Beloglazov and think that the new rules are out of balance for that reason.

 

To address this, I tried to lobby for all throws to be worth five (and, if people still demanded that there had to be a distinction between 3- and 5-point throws, for 5-pointers to result in an instant fall), but as far as I know, the idea gained no traction.

 

(note: even if takedowns were worth two and throws were worth five, throws would still have less relative value than they did according to the old 1/3 split)

And on top of this, international wrestlers value 2 point exposures during TD counters more than Americans. If takedowns are 2 points, it neutralizes the result of say, if you crotch lift your opponent for exposure but get taken down in the process. Difference between 2-2 and 2-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just hard to believe that we do not have standard rules in place for Russian and US WTT. New FILA rules come out and The US and Russia use their own version of the rules. I hope the IOC does not catch wind of this, will likely make FILA look like they have no control of the sport. FILA needs to get their scheite together and come up with some rules that work before Worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it's that American bravado in me, but I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a takedown to be worth more than a penalty point.

 

Doesn't have anything to do with that. If a takedown is one and a throw is three, a throw is worth three times as much as a takedown. If a takedown is two and a throw is three, then throws are significantly diminished in importance. Americans generally don't care, but the rest of the world certainly does, and I'm sure that many agree with Beloglazov and think that the new rules are out of balance for that reason.

 

To address this, I tried to lobby for all throws to be worth five (and, if people still demanded that there had to be a distinction between 3- and 5-point throws, for 5-pointers to result in an instant fall), but as far as I know, the idea gained no traction.

 

(note: even if takedowns were worth two and throws were worth five, throws would still have less relative value than they did according to the old 1/3 split)

 

Good point. My only disagreement is I think ACTION is valued above all else, throw or not. So rewarding throws while diminishing the value of a takedown seems to not increase the frequency of throws, but does reduce the wrestler's propensity to take risk for a takedown.

 

There are certain ways I don't think the sport can be changed, like trying to get wrestlers to try certain holds. I think the rules have to be more based around rewarding ACTION, and that includes any action. At the end of the day, the viewership just wants to see two guys getting after it and putting points on the board. Though I know people like throws, I think in general people would rather see a 10-8 'no throw' match versus a 3-1 match with a 3-point throw.

 

Reward action. Make the rules simple. And let the wrestlers decide how they want to score. But SCORE is the key part of what we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. My only disagreement is I think ACTION is valued above all else, throw or not. So rewarding throws while diminishing the value of a takedown seems to not increase the frequency of throws, but does reduce the wrestler's propensity to take risk for a takedown.

 

There are certain ways I don't think the sport can be changed, like trying to get wrestlers to try certain holds. I think the rules have to be more based around rewarding ACTION, and that includes any action. At the end of the day, the viewership just wants to see two guys getting after it and putting points on the board. Though I know people like throws, I think in general people would rather see a 10-8 'no throw' match versus a 3-1 match with a 3-point throw.

 

Reward action. Make the rules simple. And let the wrestlers decide how they want to score. But SCORE is the key part of what we need.

 

This is fair enough. We all want action -- my guess is that valuing throws more produces more action, while others may disagree.

 

Until there is a coordinated effort to test different rules sets before implementing the rules, all rules changes are just guess work. Tests could be done at regional and national training centers, especially when foreign teams come to visit, and they could be done at a whole slew of test tournaments. Statistics would need to be taken, in order to measure whatever the rules were supposed to accomplish (more scoring, more attempts, more high-point moves, whatever). Ideally, no new rules would be implemented until we had some actual data about what the new rules might accomplish.

 

I remember a decade or two ago, soccer experimented with a kick-in instead of a throw in. At the highest levels they tested, it proved unworkable, because superior players were scoring too many goals off of kick-ins. If soccer were run like wrestling, they would have just implemented the kick-in and a couple of other new rules a few months before the World Cup and waited to see what would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been a big fan of the slip rule. I see pros and cons to the rule that both encourage action but may give an opportunity for a wrestler out of position to bailout by executing a slip move. Although the example in the Pesterov vs Sat match shows a fairly straight forward example of a slip this rule will likely present some challenges to make an accurate call.

 

Around 1:15 of the video shows the slip rule applied:

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... s-Opan-Sat

 

http://www.themat.com/events/WrestlingR ... gfinal.pdf

"CHAPTER 6 – POINTS FOR ACTIONS AND HOLDS

Article 36 – Evaluation of the Importance of the Action or Hold

In order to encourage risk-taking during bouts, when a wrestler tries unsuccessfully to execute a hold

and finds himself underneath in a "par terre" position without a move by his opponent, the wrestler

above will not be awarded a technical point and both wrestlers will be brought back to their feet

immediately. However, if, during a hold, the defending wrestler executes a counterattack and is able to

bring his opponent to the ground, he will be awarded the point(s) that correspond to the action.

If the attacking wrestler executes a hold on his own bridge, holds this position for a certain amount of

time, and then completes his action by placing his opponent in the bridge position as well, he will not

be penalised. Only the attacking wrestler will be awarded the points, as he will have completed the

action in a hold that involved risks. However, if the offensive wrestler is blocked under control in the

bridge position or by a counteraction by his opponent, it is clear that points will be awarded to the latter

wrestler.

Furthermore, the wrestler on whom a hold was initiated may only be awarded points if, by his own

action, he has:

a) Brought the offensive wrestler to the ground."

 

Also interesting in the same Pesterov vs Sat match at the 2:07 mark is a good example of the new rule being applied for "PUSH-OUT". Sat ended up not getting the takedown because of the new slip rule and did not get a point because of the new "fleeing the mat" alternative to the push-out rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch Besik Kudukhov vs. Bekhan Goygereev. Only in wrestling do we create rules for a guy like Goygereev to win that match. He did one 3-point move, which was marginal at best and a counter to Kudukhov's takedown attempt. We don't use OT and we don't use 2-point takedowns, so the guy who does almost nothing for 6 minutes wins the match.

 

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with reference to changing takedown values to 1 point with 3 point feet to back exposure. You end up penalizing the attacking wrestler for making one mistake and he can't get enough (4 required) takedowns at 1 point each to come back, even though he did 90% of the attacking in that match.

 

I'm just sick thinking the Russians are promoting these rules and FILA is to lame to get everyone on the same page for the sake of the sport. If you want action, you want guys like Kudukhov wrestling.

 

I'd like to hear someone explain to me how that 3 point move was more exciting than all the action that happened trying to get a lowly takedown. #SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Kudukhov semi match is exemplary of 1-point TD disadvantages. I'm conflicted though with this awful 7-point tech fall rule where 2-point TDs could end competitive matches prematurely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch Besik Kudukhov vs. Bekhan Goygereev. Only in wrestling do we create rules for a guy like Goygereev to win that match. He did one 3-point move, which was marginal at best and a counter to Kudukhov's takedown attempt. We don't use OT and we don't use 2-point takedowns, so the guy who does almost nothing for 6 minutes wins the match.

 

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about with reference to changing takedown values to 1 point with 3 point feet to back exposure. You end up penalizing the attacking wrestler for making one mistake and he can't get enough (4 required) takedowns at 1 point each to come back, even though he did 90% of the attacking in that match.

 

I'm just sick thinking the Russians are promoting these rules and FILA is to lame to get everyone on the same page for the sake of the sport. If you want action, you want guys like Kudukhov wrestling.

 

I'd like to hear someone explain to me how that 3 point move was more exciting than all the action that happened trying to get a lowly takedown. #SMH

 

I just watched it, and I did not get the impression that Kudukhov mounted 90% of the offense, but I could be wrong. The match was three takedowns for Kudukhov to two for Goygereev (4-3 Goygereev). It should have been 6-5 for Kudukhov under the current rules set.

 

The 3 pointer was legit. Feet to back, broke the 90 degree plane. You don't need to control the man after the throw to get the points in freestyle. Goygereev wrestled a great match, and did what he needed to do to win under the rules as they were. Great match, in my opinion, with a lot of excellent counter wrestling on display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goygereev over Kudukhov was a great match. Very close.

 

Kudukhov definitely attacked more, something like 9 or 10 attacks to 4 of Goygereev's although nothing like 90% of the total attacks, but frankly, he was pretty sloppy by his standards, and some of the attacks were more "feeler" or setup type of moves, e.g. a swipe attempting an ankle pick and four different snap-down attempts late in the second.

 

Goygereev was more calculated and took shots only when there was a clear opening, but when he took a shot, he always created action. He got in all three times he attempted singles: a sweep single that created a good scramble but no score, another single that led to a good scramble, and a third single in which he got in pretty good but gave up a TD (in my opinion, mainly because he gassed hard and didn't have the fight he had in the first period, when he kept much better position throughout).

 

The 3-pointer was 100% legit, with Kudukhov's back clearly breaking 90 degrees, his hips and legs being whipped over to the point that he had to bail out on his takedown attempt and belly down. It was easily the best move of the match and very deserving of the 3.

 

I think what bothers some, and me too, is the image of Goygereev sucking wind like his lungs were collapsing late in the second while Kudukhov dutifully mounted his high-pressure attack, because we are conditioned to want the wrestler with more offensive attempts to win. But to me, the marginally better man won a very close match that day. Goygereev controlled the tie-ups better and was in better position the majority of the time, hit by far the best move of the day, and faded hard in the end to let Kudukhov catch up in scoring but scored the final TD to win it in the end anyway.

 

As for the 1 vs. 2 point TD debate, I feel the same way bwh27 does. I would be 100% in favor of the 2-pt TD if it weren't for the asinine 7-pt TF rule. With that rule in place, I marginally favor the 1-pt TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the Russians also ignore the shot clock this weekend? Goygereev blocked out and ran at least half of that match, although I'll agree he had more than10 percent of the attacks.

this match points out why the two out three format helps determines who the better wrestler is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this match points out why the two out three format helps determines who the better wrestler is

 

I'd classify it more as an outlier than a consistent reason why. The three-period system was one of the culprits in the IOC's recommendation, along with the poor leadership that put it into place.

 

The Russian version of the rules are just that ... their version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, Goygereev's last takedown was only scored because Kudukhov had to score or he would lose on criteria (no OT), so he went for broke and hung on.

 

Guys, all I can say is if that's the freestyle you want to see, then keep the rules as the Russians had them. I don't find the move that Goygereev did to be particularly exciting from a casual fan's point of view. Surely not exciting enough to defend the rest of the match and concede 1 point takedowns knowing they won't catch up.

 

Personally, I'd rather see the style where you have to continue to wrestle (ala Jordan Oliver in LA) or you will have a good chance to get beat. I would watch that match 100x in a row over this one, and it's entirely rules based. Both Goygereev and Kudukhov are incredible wrestlers.

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...