Death to riding time

[D3UC157 163]

Would eliminating riding time reduce top stalling in a noticeable way?

 

How many times does bottom wrestler need to get to their feet to constitute top stalling? (In your opinion)

[Hufarted 31]

I don't think eliminating riding time would reduce top stalling that much unless it's a really tight match. There was a lot of riding with few attempts to turn at this years NCAAs which I think could be stopped by putting the guys back on their feet in neutral (no escape point awarded) if the top guy doesn't get a turn within a certain amount of time. I think a minute would be just about right, if a guy doesn't get the turn within a minute they go to neutral. However I think the top guy should receive stall warnings if he isn't actively trying to turn. 

[Jim L 328]

Eliminating riding time I don't think is a magic bullet to stop inaction on the mat.  In a very close match, it is still advantageous to ride a guy as long as possible.  You can deny him the 1 point escape and also prevent any chance of being taken down.

[CoachWrestling 432]

It would significantly decrease it. People are underestimating how much better it would be

[jp157 522]

It wouldn’t eliminate it but it would decrease it. I think people really underestimate how much times college rooms spend on securing that riding point 

[jp157 522]

^time not times 

[Schuteandscore 168]

11 hours ago, Hufarted said:

I don't think eliminating riding time would reduce top stalling that much unless it's a really tight match. There was a lot of riding with few attempts to turn at this years NCAAs which I think could be stopped by putting the guys back on their feet in neutral (no escape point awarded) if the top guy doesn't get a turn within a certain amount of time. I think a minute would be just about right, if a guy doesn't get the turn within a minute they go to neutral. However I think the top guy should receive stall warnings if he isn't actively trying to turn. 

30 seconds would be plenty

[EM_1996 15]

Getting rid of riding time is unlikely to eliminate stalling on top entirely. Some wrestlers will still likely try to slow a match down by grinding out a stall ride.  I, however, am totally in favor of removing it for the sole reason that I do not believe the outcome of any match should be determined by a riding time point. 

[steamboat_charlie v2 1,160]

It depends on what you care about.  If you care about the roots of folkstyle, matches way back used to be decided entirely based on how long you "controlled" your opponent, provided you couldn't pin them.  

[headlock 5]

Eliminating riding time would do little or even increase stalling, primarily due to the bottom wrestler. Going to a Pushout would be a 10x greater incentive for action then eliminating riding time.
There is a loud group that just doesn’t like mat wrestling. It is very hard to turn a skill opponent, especially with the potentially dangerous rules. Aaron Brooks didn’t seem to ride with less vigor after attaining more than 1 minute riding time.  He had a greater chance to score points from neutral, but stayed on top because it is a better position. I coach college wrestlers and we tell them every 1 second on top is worth 2 seconds on energy expenditure for the bottom guy.

[red blades 366]

18 hours ago, D3UC157 said:

Would eliminating riding time reduce top stalling in a noticeable way?

I think it would, and especially if it became a point of emphasis that the top man has to work for a fall.  Under current rules, it seems to me there is a reluctance to call top stalling because accumulating riding time is a legitimate means to score; it seems to me every wrestler is given a "grace period" to either accumulate riding time, or to work off an opponant's advntage.   Eliminate the ride time, and ther is no legitimate scoring reason to just hang on.

[rpbobcat 56]

11 minutes ago, headlock said:

I coach college wrestlers and we tell them every 1 second on top is worth 2 seconds on energy expenditure for the bottom guy.

This is pretty much what I was told when I wrestled in college.

The NCAA has already reduced the "importance" of riding time.

When I wrestled, in the "dark ages" , the matches were 2-3-3.

If you got 1 minute of riding time, it was one point.2 minutes of riding time,2 points.

I was a much better "mat" wrestler then on my feet.

I won several matches by getting 2 minutes of riding time.

Personally, I enjoy seeing just how well some of today's wrestlers 

can ride.

 

 

 

[GockeS 548]

i see nothing wrong with the current rules. (except perhaps the stopping of the 5 count in some situations, or playing the 4 second and let go game)

what i see is a lack of intestinal fortitude from referees.

[patmilkovich 130]

In folkstyle:

Can someone explain to me:

what a “stall ride” is?

 why controlling an ankle is any different than controlling the wrists, throwing legs, a claw, a spiral, a front headlock, underhook, two on one, or an inside tie?

 why 5 seconds is the magic number to release control below the waist?

 why the bottom man is not obligated to wrestle out of whatever is keeping him down.

why, if 5 seconds below the waist is unacceptable and top man has to let go, concede, or otherwise change off, how come all situations don’t have a 5 count limit (Front head lock, 2/1, claw, legs, spiral, wrist elbow chop, underhooks, head tie, etc.,)

how one can defend/counter a regular single, a low single, or a high crotch, but cannot defend/counter when someone catches their ankle or drops down to pick up a single from behind when standing?

why the bottom man is wrestling on this stomach and elbows?

why demonstrating control/dominance and being rewarded 2 pts. for a TD, or 2 pts. for a reversal, or points for tilts, or points for escapes, etc., is ok but controlling/dominating an opponent for over 1 min RT should not be rewarded?

why the down man should get a “free up” if he can’t be turned and why RT should not be his penalty for his shortcoming?

why starting 3 periods on your feet is more advantageous to procuring a fall than alternating top and bottom?

why 1 point for every 30 seconds RT would not increase top/bottom action and decrease the alleged stalling on top?

Thanks. Pmilk

[swoopdown 628]

Geez some people hate riding time.

Maybe making riding time count against the top wrestler is the ultimate "catch-and -release" solution.  Give points to the opposing wrestler for every minute accumulated.  It goes to zero after a wrestler scores back points or a TD.  The negative riding time clock!

Either that or put carcinogenic materials on the mat.  Too much exposure and ....  That addresses stalling on the bottom and top and encourages quick falls.

Always trying to help!

Edited March 24 by swoopdown

[Crotalus 592]

2 hours ago, EM_1996 said:

Getting rid of riding time is unlikely to eliminate stalling on top entirely. Some wrestlers will still likely try to slow a match down by grinding out a stall ride.  I, however, am totally in favor of removing it for the sole reason that I do not believe the outcome of any match should be determined by a riding time point. 

Yep. I'm mostly ok with the top guy grinding out a stall ride to preserve a one point lead or a tie to go to OT, but I don't think he should be able to win/tie a match just by riding.

[LavionMayes 12]

1 hour ago, patmilkovich said:

In folkstyle:

Can someone explain to me:

what a “stall ride” is?

Stall riding is an act by the advantaged wrestler (top position) to maintain control without an intent to score points by selectively using certain positions to control the disadvantaged wrestler (bottom position).

 why controlling an ankle is any different than controlling the wrists, throwing legs, a claw, a spiral, a front headlock, underhook, two on one, or an inside tie?

It is not different from a control standpoint but it's different from a situational standpoint. In addition, the advataged wrestler has the advantaged position. 

 why 5 seconds is the magic number to release control below the waist?

Most referees cannot count past 5. 

 why the bottom man is not obligated to wrestle out of whatever is keeping him down.

Because he's the disadvantaged wrestler.

why, if 5 seconds below the waist is unacceptable and top man has to let go, concede, or otherwise change off, how come all situations don’t have a 5 count limit (Front head lock, 2/1, claw, legs, spiral, wrist elbow chop, underhooks, head tie, etc.,)

Stalemates occur. But side headlocks on top used to have a count as well (need confirmation if this is still a thing.) However, those other positions don't limit the capable motions and movements of the disadvantaged wrestler. 

how one can defend/counter a regular single, a low single, or a high crotch, but cannot defend/counter when someone catches their ankle or drops down to pick up a single from behind when standing?

If you choose to engage in the position, referees have thought that means that it's okay not to start or continue the call. Same thing with neutral edge rules. If you show desire to be in certain positions, referees will try to let the action continue.

why the bottom man is wrestling on this stomach and elbows?

Wrestlers do that by choice?

why demonstrating control/dominance and being rewarded 2 pts. for a TD, or 2 pts. for a reversal, or points for tilts, or points for escapes, etc., is ok but controlling/dominating an opponent for over 1 min RT should not be rewarded?

TDs aren't always about control. Many of them are artful and athletic. 

why the down man should get a “free up” if he can’t be turned and why RT should not be his penalty for his shortcoming?

With that logic, we should remove all stalemates and stalling calls from every position. Why should any wrestler be penalized because the other wrestler is unable to score?

 

1 hour ago, patmilkovich said:

why starting 3 periods on your feet is more advantageous to procuring a fall than alternating top and bottom?

 

why 1 point for every 30 seconds RT would not increase top/bottom action and decrease the alleged stalling on top?

Define top/bottom action please.

Thanks. Pmilk

 

[jp157 522]

I actually made sure to talk to a good amount of older coaches I know.. from all age levels are various locations. And they unanimously agreed refs have changed the way the call stalling for top bottom over the last decade or so. In fact it shocked me in how much agreement they were over that one point.. especially because they were much more varied in their thoughts about Riding time itself 
 

So any argument that refs were not more aggressive in dinging the top man for not actually trying to turn.. and that “back. In the day” guys were that much better with similar reffing doesn’t hold weight. 
 

The goal of rule changes should not be to help wrestlers with meta gaming. It should be to incentivize action

[Elevator 307]

4 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

This is pretty much what I was told when I wrestled in college.

The NCAA has already reduced the "importance" of riding time.

When I wrestled, in the "dark ages" , the matches were 2-3-3.

If you got 1 minute of riding time, it was one point.2 minutes of riding time,2 points.

I was a much better "mat" wrestler then on my feet.

I won several matches by getting 2 minutes of riding time.

Personally, I enjoy seeing just how well some of today's wrestlers 

can ride.

 

 

 

Agree with this - I am ok with it and so no crisis 

[Casper 89]

No. Getting a point for being in control is worth it. Problem is the refs don't call stalling when a wrestler does nothing but ride.

You ride and control the bottom man as you move to pin him. That is the idea. If you don't work for a pinning move - either let him up or maybe change the rules that after two 'stalemates' brought on by riding without trying to pin the wrestlers go to their feet - point awarded for the bottom man or not?

[NJDan 1,084]

11 hours ago, Schuteandscore said:

30 seconds would be plenty

This is my idea

[Dartsingle 20]

I don't think we need to remove riding time....But the rules committee needs to look at parallel riding and things like the ankle ride where there is essentially no goal to actually turn...and have the officials actually call stalling for this.  Too many times top is riding completely parallel, holding wrists, and hanging on....and the bottom man gets banged for stalling.  

 

There needs to be an emphasis by the rules committee on having the top guy off to the side and looking to turn.  I also think we need to get rid of the verbal 5 second count which essentially tells the top guy...'hey you have five seconds before I call you for stalling....so come to the waist...then drop back down again for another five seconds...then rinse and repeat.'  

Edited March 24 by Dartsingle

[GockeS 548]

i agree with ankle ride sentiment... if i get a 5 count for grabbing the ankle with my hand... hwo do i not get a five count when i use my leg and sit on the ankle...

[steen-hooph 74]

How about not being able to start acquiring riding time until you have a two point score of some kind (takedown, reversal, near fall). It would make scoring in first period much more valuable and make riding in the second/third periods without a 2 point score worth nothing. 

[GockeS 548]

i like that idea!!