1 point turns are still in the official rules

[Plasmodium 1,110]

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.

 

The two out of three format puts a more appropriate value on a single move.

[wrestlingnerd 2,357]

The 3-pointer was a hell of a lot more exciting than snapping a guy down and spinning behind, which is how Kudukhov scored a couple of times. I too was rooting for the more active man to win, but he didn't wrestle a great match, especially for the caliber of wrestler he is. It's hard for me to watch that match and call him the rightful winner by any standard other than hussle or folkstyle bias.

[Plasmodium 1,110]

Exactly. The three point move was insurmountable and so Goygereev conceded meaningless points.

[tirapell 34]

The 3-pointer was a hell of a lot more exciting than snapping a guy down and spinning behind, which is how Kudukhov scored a couple of times. I too was rooting for the more active man to win, but he didn't wrestle a great match, especially for the caliber of wrestler he is. It's hard for me to watch that match and call him the rightful winner by any standard other than hussle or folkstyle bias.

 

You are missing my point. I'm not saying Kudukhov should have won or deserved to win. You're talking from a wrestling point of view. I'm approaching this from what we need for fans/media to stay relevant in this new era.

 

If we had 2pt TD's, maybe Kudukhov wins and maybe he doesn't. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that Goygereev has to continue to wrestle and we see a more dynamic, exciting match. Many of those spin behinds were the result of Goygereev being ok with surrendering 1pt, knowing he had a big lead (remember, no OT so he had the criteria tiebreak as well). What we absolutely don't want is next time, Kudukhov being more tenative and taking less risk so he doesn't fall behind early. Then we get the same old snooze-fest that doesn't help the sport. If the wrestlers feel like they are in a greater danger of losing for being aggressive, then they will be more cautious and strategic. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT???!

 

Listen, in my opinion, Kudukhov made that match. He didn't win it, but he wrestles aggressively and that's good for wrestling. If we have rules that penalize aggressive wrestling, we are absolutely screwed as a sport and might as well start practicing squash so we can enjoy it in 2020.

[wrestlingnerd 2,357]

I'm not missing your point. I just don't agree with it. I fail to see how, in this match in particular (not making an overall assessment here...), having 2 pt. TDs would've been so much better.

 

First, there's the important factor of the asinine 7 pt TF to consider. Maybe we would've been robbed of a great match with drama until the final seconds if there were 2 pt TDs. Maybe the match would've ended 2 minutes too early. I, for one, really enjoyed the match and thought it was exciting and a good representation of the sport, not a stallfest. I would've hated to see it end prematurely.

 

With 2 pt TDs, maybe Kudukhov would actually have done the opposite of what he did, hussle, and instead would've slowed things down after just 2 TDs (he'd be winning 4-3 then), turning the match into the dreaded stallfest. Since, as olddirty mentioned on this thread already, a TD being worth 2 pts involves both more reward but also more risk, who knows?

 

I don't think this is a good match to point to as an example supporting the thesis that having 1 pt. TDs diminishes the excitement of a match or its level of activity. That's my point.

 

Regarding the debate of 1 vs. 2 pt TDs, as I mentioned, I may agree with you in the final analysis, but the reason I'm on the fence now and might even favor 1 is the 7 pt. TF rule, which I hate.

[tirapell 34]

Then we disagree.

 

If I had my ideal rules:

1 pt step-out

1 pt reversal

2 pt takedown

2 pt exposure (no hand-to-hand, every exposure is 2pts)

3 pt feet to back exposure

 

Two 3 minute periods (:30 rest in-between)

12+ point technical superiority

Tie goes to OT - first score wins

 

 

I have never been a fan of 5 point moves and deciding what is and what isn't 5. Too subjective. I'm thinking simple. Also, technically superior is to mean that if the match should go on, the margin of victory would likely increase, not prevent a comeback.

 

In this respect, the sport mirros an already popular sport in basketball. 1's, 2's, and 3's. Pretty straight-forward on the scoring and ties don't have winners. It wouldn't take fans long to figure out the point values for scoring and the wrestlers would have incentive to wrestle the whole match. Matches would be easy to follow and scores would increase. More moves and more action is better for the sport.

[tirapell 34]

What's funny is, these are pretty similar to the rules that came out initially. Only differences are removal of 5 point move, OT, and 12pt technical superiority.

[wrestlingnerd 2,357]

I would sign up for those rules without a second thought over the current rules with the 7 pt. TF.

 

Unfortunately, FILA insists on making progress and then taking a huge step back.

[quanon 161]

I like those rules as well, because they are nice and simple. I'd give five points to throws (a throw to the back should be worth more than a takedown and a turn to the back), but I don't think it matters all that much.

 

Having said that, why have tech falls at all? It adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the rules. No other sport that I can think of has such a rule. We have the tech fall to encourage action, so that wrestlers continue to score instead of sitting on their leads (and at lower levels, as a mercy rule). FILA set the bar for the tech very low to ensure that the best wrestlers will actually try to reach it. Seems unnecessary, especially since the wrestlers who might tech fall their opponents would be the same wrestlers who might try to set scoring records if given the chance -- a better result if you're trying to encourage action. I recall watching Saitiev score more than twenty against an opponent once under different rules, when you could wave off the tech.

 

If the world level tourney were spread out over multiple days, the best competitors would not be so concerned with conserving their energy, and you would have no need for the tech. The rule might actually be counterproductive, cutting good matches short and preventing good comebacks.

[GoNotQuietly 719]

. I recall watching Saitiev score more than twenty against an opponent once under different rules, when you could wave off the tech.

 

Completely agree, and that match was awesome..Saitiev was either pissed at the guy, or wanted to get a real good drill session in, but he hit some of the most absurd techniques I have ever seen in my life!

[Bucksman 0]

At least in the high school/collegiate wrestling context, the tech fall is kind of like a mercy rule. The match ends b/c the margin is clear, decisive, and a blowout.

 

Certain sports have these types of rules in place at various levels - obviously more do in youth/high school (and in h.s. it seems more sports are implementing them) than do at the highest levels for the sport (fast-pitch softball has a run rule even at the college/international level).

[tirapell 34]

I like those rules as well, because they are nice and simple. I'd give five points to throws (a throw to the back should be worth more than a takedown and a turn to the back), but I don't think it matters all that much.

 

Having said that, why have tech falls at all? It adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the rules. No other sport that I can think of has such a rule. We have the tech fall to encourage action, so that wrestlers continue to score instead of sitting on their leads (and at lower levels, as a mercy rule). FILA set the bar for the tech very low to ensure that the best wrestlers will actually try to reach it. Seems unnecessary, especially since the wrestlers who might tech fall their opponents would be the same wrestlers who might try to set scoring records if given the chance -- a better result if you're trying to encourage action. I recall watching Saitiev score more than twenty against an opponent once under different rules, when you could wave off the tech.

 

If the world level tourney were spread out over multiple days, the best competitors would not be so concerned with conserving their energy, and you would have no need for the tech. The rule might actually be counterproductive, cutting good matches short and preventing good comebacks.

 

I agree. The tech-fall started out as a mercy rule but has become a crutch for FILA to use to end matches early and get a tournament over in 1 day. Why, I have no idea as other individual sports including very short events compete over multiple days (swimming, track, etc).

 

If the world would agree, I'd eliminate the tech fall in a heartbeat. You could always add it in for levels below the elite.

 

When the rules were changed again (for the 2nd time), my first complaint was that part of being a wrestler means you have to wrestle for the full allotted time, unless you can pin your opponent. I still believe in the interest of making things simple, the tech-fall is just another rule that fans have to remember and is completely unnecessary and a detractor to seeing top level talent on display. If you can't wrestle for 6 minutes with a 30 second rest, you aren't a wrestler...at least you're not the best of the best.

[quanon 161]

Since we're complaining, here's another issue I have with the rules. The clock needs to count down.

 

No one unfamiliar with the sport knows how much time is left in a period when it counts up, and those who know the length of periods just have to do math in their heads to figure out how much time is left anyway. The official rules say that the count should count up, for no reason that I can perceive. Perhaps because it's always been done that way.

 

To make things even easier, since we've abandoned tennis sets, why have periods at all? It wasn't that long ago that matches were a single period of five minutes. A clock that counts down from five or six minutes is easy to understand. (If the argument is that the rest period increases activity, as far as I know there has been no study to prove this -- making wholesale switches between rules sets makes anything like this impossible to demonstrate.)

[JasonBryant 1,475]

Q,

The Russians did this at their Nationals, which is something I've rarely seen at overseas tournaments. It's actually a point I'm going to raise in my next IWN piece. I'm in agreement 100 percent.

[ccrider55 16]

I like those rules as well, because they are nice and simple. I'd give five points to throws (a throw to the back should be worth more than a takedown and a turn to the back), but I don't think it matters all that much.

 

Having said that, why have tech falls at all? It adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the rules. No other sport that I can think of has such a rule. We have the tech fall to encourage action, so that wrestlers continue to score instead of sitting on their leads (and at lower levels, as a mercy rule). FILA set the bar for the tech very low to ensure that the best wrestlers will actually try to reach it. Seems unnecessary, especially since the wrestlers who might tech fall their opponents would be the same wrestlers who might try to set scoring records if given the chance -- a better result if you're trying to encourage action. I recall watching Saitiev score more than twenty against an opponent once under different rules, when you could wave off the tech.

 

If the world level tourney were spread out over multiple days, the best competitors would not be so concerned with conserving their energy, and you would have no need for the tech. The rule might actually be counterproductive, cutting good matches short and preventing good comebacks.

 

I agree. The tech-fall started out as a mercy rule but has become a crutch for FILA to use to end matches early and get a tournament over in 1 day. Why, I have no idea as other individual sports including very short events compete over multiple days (swimming, track, etc).

 

If the world would agree, I'd eliminate the tech fall in a heartbeat. You could always add it in for levels below the elite.

 

When the rules were changed again (for the 2nd time), my first complaint was that part of being a wrestler means you have to wrestle for the full allotted time, unless you can pin your opponent. I still believe in the interest of making things simple, the tech-fall is just another rule that fans have to remember and is completely unnecessary and a detractor to seeing top level talent on display. If you can't wrestle for 6 minutes with a 30 second rest, you aren't a wrestler...at least you're not the best of the best.

I totally agree. I'd add that the tech was added as a mercy rule and to a limited extent as a penalty. It was a large enough margin to have shown one wrestler was no longer a threat at all, but the superior wrestler had been shown incapable or uninterested in getting the fall. Hence the ability originally of waving off the tech for those who really wanted/needed the fall. They were willing to risk losing the tech (or even the match) if the opponent managed to mount a bit of a come back, in order to use the full allotment of time to try to get it. Not sure whether returning that is a good idea or not, but it does demonstrate a higher desire to pin.

[jstock 120]

Why do the wrestlers at the elite level need a :30 sec break ?

[quick__single 18]

Most likely ro regroup and put the focus/emphasis back on technique.