Jump to content
patmilkovich

Decrease in FALLS and increase in OT's since 70's...why?

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Interesting take on the wrestling dads. Ben Askren has talked about this phenomena some, too. And Miron Kharchilava has talked about not wrestling competitions too young, I believe.

It’s producing a lot of kids that hate the sport and who are leaving the sport and have no intention of their kid wrestling. 
 

That same kind of parent is also usually the same crowd that’s against common sense ideas to help the sport 

Edited by jp157
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swoop, Hoyle, Grogan, Always, and a couple other folks..thanks for your thoughtful insights. Here's how I see it with my timeline from the 60's to present. My major observations: 

I read and hear people complain that there is too much stalling, not enough pinning, wrestling is too boring.  We need to change this rule or we need to change that rule. Wrestling is what is today because of the rules. There is a correlation, cause and effect, with some critical rules changes in 1985 (and since) that have impacted the incidence rates of falls and OT's. 1985 was the first year rules changed from alternating top and bottom for each man to choice, i.e., top-bottom-neutral-defer. Starting 3 periods on the feet does not help facilitate falls. 

I believe that particular rule change has done nothing to improve wrestling, especially with regards to pinning.  I also don’t believe that rule alone has made falls decrease and OT's increase .  Eliminating 2 points maximum for riding time, eliminating the requirement for bottom wrestling by limiting (5 sec) how long the top man can control below the waist, and reducing matches from 8 minutes to 7 minutes have all contributed to fewer falls, more overtime matches and, I think, decreased action and made wrestling less "active" for the most part.  Eliminating RT in high school has certainly impacted T/B skills. Not to say there haven’t been some exciting matches over the years, but I think those changes have hurt more than helped.The constant push to transition to FS hasn't helped those stats either, since T/B skills are basically, related to folkstyle NCAA, non-essential and mostly geared to "neutral" wrestling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at this the same as what happened in Ice Hockey. Coaching took a giant leap forward especially when it comes to defense. Coaches figured that they can stay in games by not trying to score and waiting for the perfect times to take a chance. I think wrestling is the same. Guys are now taught to be so fundamentally sound defensively that they are reluctant to open up against even or better competition. I don't think you can make a defensive wrestler go for it offensively once they are built. You see it all the time when a wrestler is down two late with the other having riding time. They struggle to try to score because mentally they are weighing the risk to heavily. I really believe it is better coaching at all levels with too much focus on defense.

Share this post


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

70s had longer matches didn’t they? I believe the matches were 9 minutes. Highly possible that longer matches would equate to more falls and less OT matches.

8 minutes. 9 was a little earlier. But yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown... Post mentions match length as a factor, but there are additional considerations that have impacted those stats. Briefly, TBND choice-3 periods starting in neutral, de-emphasis on bottom skills and the restrictions on top man that would force bottom to wrestle.  Emphasis on FS/International and the incorporation of "cousin" concepts...e.g. 5 seconds below the  waist is a relative of "no hands" below in Greco. "Choice" is a relative of FS starting in neutral and avoiding mat wrestling. Elimination of RT in high school has retarded the skills/strategies that are valuable for college. Oly wrestling is hanging by a thread and it's probably only a question of time before it's gone, I believe. So, folkstyle is our bread and butter. Pins are what brings fans out of their seats and those are becoming fewer and farther between, OT's are becoming more frequent, and the rules are the culprit. Gable's team of the late 70's and 80's were prime examples of pinners and excitement. The rules of the day were a huge factor. I believe it has zero to do with parity, year round wrestling, defense, clinics, earlier training, or parents. Watch the top schools, particularly Iowa and PSU..they excel in all three disciplines because they teach/understand all three in detail. Winning requires control and the rules change the definition..e.g., hand touch TD, neutral danger (I think that's an oxymoron)...limiting time below the waist alters the top man's ability to control and assists the bottom man. Bottom doesn't have to compromise his position that may lead to more trouble and it reduces his having to expend a lot of energy to do battle and as we all know fatigue makes you vulnerable as the match goes on. thanks for participating in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, patmilkovich said:

Brown... Post mentions match length as a factor, but there are additional considerations that have impacted those stats. Briefly, TBND choice-3 periods starting in neutral, de-emphasis on bottom skills and the restrictions on top man that would force bottom to wrestle.  Emphasis on FS/International and the incorporation of "cousin" concepts...e.g. 5 seconds below the  waist is a relative of "no hands" below in Greco. "Choice" is a relative of FS starting in neutral and avoiding mat wrestling. Elimination of RT in high school has retarded the skills/strategies that are valuable for college. Oly wrestling is hanging by a thread and it's probably only a question of time before it's gone, I believe. So, folkstyle is our bread and butter. Pins are what brings fans out of their seats and those are becoming fewer and farther between, OT's are becoming more frequent, and the rules are the culprit. Gable's team of the late 70's and 80's were prime examples of pinners and excitement. The rules of the day were a huge factor. I believe it has zero to do with parity, year round wrestling, defense, clinics, earlier training, or parents. Watch the top schools, particularly Iowa and PSU..they excel in all three disciplines because they teach/understand all three in detail. Winning requires control and the rules change the definition..e.g., hand touch TD, neutral danger (I think that's an oxymoron)...limiting time below the waist alters the top man's ability to control and assists the bottom man. Bottom doesn't have to compromise his position that may lead to more trouble and it reduces his having to expend a lot of energy to do battle and as we all know fatigue makes you vulnerable as the match goes on. thanks for participating in the discussion.

I don't see how parity would not be a factor.  To take the simplest case, would it be more likely to see a pin in the #1 vs (#32/#33 winner), or in the #16 vs #17 match?

20220313_165443.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

I don't see how parity would not be a factor.  To take the simplest case, would it be more likely to see a pin in the #1 vs (#32/#33 winner), or in the #16 vs #17 match?

20220313_165443.jpg

The sample size here falls into play though. Sure we would expect more in the 1 v (32 v 33) vs 16 v 17. But in theory, I would expect more in the 32 v 33 than the 16 v 17. In my old software, (80s,90s early 00s) I had a factor that would essentially show the ratio of pins (actual wrestling time vs 7 minutes per in college). The lower the level event the lower the factor. I realized it was more related to the skill level of either or both wrestlers in a bout than it was to the better wrestler. Of course, the better wrestler was the individual more likely to get the fall but two less skilled wrestlers may have been more likely to have their bout end in a fall. So in the above, it's not like the 32 v 33 stink at the D1 level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, gimpeltf said:

The sample size here falls into play though. Sure we would expect more in the 1 v (32 v 33) vs 16 v 17. But in theory, I would expect more in the 32 v 33 than the 16 v 17. In my old software, (80s,90s early 00s) I had a factor that would essentially show the ratio of pins (actual wrestling time vs 7 minutes per in college). The lower the level event the lower the factor. I realized it was more related to the skill level of either or both wrestlers in a bout than it was to the better wrestler. Of course, the better wrestler was the individual more likely to get the fall but two less skilled wrestlers may have been more likely to have their bout end in a fall. So in the above, it's not like the 32 v 33 stink at the D1 level.

Sample size?
Of course, I agree with what you said about pins being more likely in matches involving less skilled wrestlers, even if "evenly matched".  (I've watched some PeeWee matches.)  Wouldn't this fall under "evolution of the sport" and "dispersion of technique and training" umbrellas as an explanation of fewer falls?  Much more "cross polination of programs".
I was only saying that I thought there were explanations other than rule changes.
I should have known better than to get involved in this.  Deal me out.

Share this post


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

Sample size?
Of course, I agree with what you said about pins being more likely in matches involving less skilled wrestlers, even if "evenly matched".  (I've watched some PeeWee matches.)  Wouldn't this fall under "evolution of the sport" and "dispersion of technique and training" umbrellas as an explanation of fewer falls?  Much more "cross polination of programs".
I was only saying that I thought there were explanations other than rule changes.
I should have known better than to get involved in this.  Deal me out.

By sample size, I meant the example was only amongst high caliber D1 wrestlers. Not all that much difference between 1 and 33 as compared to say a HS Christmas tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Then that is the answer.

Before that time we had the Superior Decision which was a win by 10pts. or better. Might have been 12 for a few years but I forget off the top of my head.

EDIT: Thought just occurred to me due to your question.  Near fall points rules changes might have played a part in the lower numbers of Falls. Wrestlers may feel it is easier to get to 15 point margin than to pin. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Gene Mills introduced the tilt, scores skyrocketed. The tech fall eliminated those wild scores. It was kinda like a mercy killing and also maybe cut down on some pins. Yes, when I was in college the periods were 3-3-3. Can't say that made for more pins. It did make for more stalling. 

Back points were FAR harder to come by before tilts began. Earlier the scoring was 3 points for a 'near fall' and 1 point for a 'predicament'. Later they made a 'predicament' 2 points. But refs were stingy with back points. I saw a kid at PA States the other day score 3 back points with the other kid's back 6 inches off the mat. A ref back then wouldn't have even looked at that. And it had nothing to do with the time of exposure. It had to do with the angle of exposure. 

A major reason in the decline of pins may be the type of moves that lead to back points. Often, they aren't very good pinning moves. Good for exposure, but lousy for decking. Those types of moves didn't exist then. A pinning combination did just that. Its object wasn't back points, it was falls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Techs may have eliminated some pins, but what they eliminated were the crazy 20+ score differentials. To me, the biggest offender was Wisconsin. There were others getting those types of spreads but they were, at least, getting back points. I remember Lock Haven light weights doing this- Rupp, Fay, Rupp, Rippey had crazy matches. But Wisconsin would get 25 snag single tds to all escapes and only try for more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see a good faith argument that depth and quality of competition hasn’t increased…  for a host of reasons. 

The amount of pins fell off long before the drop down rule you hate so much. 

Techs and tilts have undoubtedly contributed but not as much as people think. Tilts are simply much more attainable that regular pinning holds. So when wrestling someone  of equal skill or near equal. Tilts will happen more
 

A perfect example is a half and wrist. I don’t know a single  coach, good or bad that thinks it’s not a good if not great technique.. hell, that might be one of the few things you could actually get 20 coaches to agree on.. “half and wrist is a solid to great technique”. It is literally taught everywhere 

but.. you see a direct correlation between the quality of a states overall competition.. and the amount of pins with that technique you see overall. And in the way coaches think about it. 
 

But again, I cannot see a good faith argument that doesn’t acknowledge the increase in quality and depth of competition 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When Gene Mills introduced the tilt, scores skyrocketed. The tech fall eliminated those wild scores. It was kinda like a mercy killing and also maybe cut down on some pins. Yes, when I was in college the periods were 3-3-3. Can't say that made for more pins. It did make for more stalling. 

Back points were FAR harder to come by before tilts began. Earlier the scoring was 3 points for a 'near fall' and 1 point for a 'predicament'. Later they made a 'predicament' 2 points. But refs were stingy with back points. I saw a kid at PA States the other day score 3 back points with the other kid's back 6 inches off the mat. A ref back then wouldn't have even looked at that. And it had nothing to do with the time of exposure. It had to do with the angle of exposure. 

A major reason in the decline of pins may be the type of moves that lead to back points. Often, they aren't very good pinning moves. Good for exposure, but lousy for decking. Those types of moves didn't exist then. A pinning combination did just that. Its object wasn't back points, it was falls." 

Excellent analysis Cougar. Tilts holds are not pin holds, they are tilt holds, completely different than bona fide pin holds, but they satisfy the "work for a fall" emphasis. We have traded pins for tilts and wrestling a complete match for "tech falls." Back in the day, they kept wrestling regardless of the point spread. Check out some of the scores in the NCAA’s pre-mercy rule before ’85: Pat Christenson (Wis-‘74) 28-5 , Nabil Guketlov  (Montclair St.-‘75) 26-9, Mike Land (ISU-’77) 26-4, Mark Churella (Mich-’77) 34-4, Bill Cripps (ASU-’80) 22-0, Gene Mills (Syracuse-81) 28-4, Charlie Heard (UTChat-’84) 32-12, Melvin Douglas (OkUniv-’84) 35-5, and then there’s this gem…Joe Gibbons (ISU-’84) 32-0. BUT THEY DIDN’T GET PINNED!  Can you argue that there was little action and lots of stalling? The rules allowed that kind of wrestling! And these are just a sampling. And you are spot on with points awarded for a back 6 inches off the mat. Never would have happened way back when. And you had to have him glued to the mat for I believe 2 seconds...no such thing as the, basically now, "touch fall."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Old Cougar and Milkovich.  Most of the holds today that score back points are tilts, and really not pinning holds.  (Gets away from the original topic, but a lot of the four point "near falls" that I see are in no way, shape or form worth two takedowns.)

Combine that with bottom wrestlers understanding that they cannot afford higher risk moves for reversals that might end up with the referee "swiping" four points on them, or even a quick two points, and you get a lot more conservative bottom wrestling tactics.   Get to your feet, and stay up, and the top man almost has to let you go to avoid a stalling call.

 

 

Edited by OldGrappler

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...