Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BobDole

Rank the Rule Changes you want

Recommended Posts

There are four main rule changes that everyone is up in arms about, rank them in order from 1-4 with one being the one that needs changed the most, while four is the one that you could live with staying.

 

Here are my rankings

1. 2 3's end a match

-This needs to be changed immediately, no question this can have a detrimental affect on the action.

2. 7 point tech fall

- Way too low, needs to be 10points

3. Overtime/criteria for tied match

-I think the other two need changed more than this does

4. 5 point throw ending a match

- I could live with having two types of "knockout" punches and a five is very rare on the freestyle side of things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K.I.S.S.

 

10 or 12 point tech

no "ippons" or "waza" - this isn't judo

OT until someone scores - no time limit

 

lesser priority - turns equal 3 points; 2 points hand to hand

feet to back take downs or lifts 4 points

 

As for worlds or olympics - get away from double bronze, full wrestlebacks and two day format for all weights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are four main rule changes that everyone is up in arms about, rank them in order from 1-4 with one being the one that needs changed the most, while four is the one that you could live with staying.

 

Here are my rankings

1. 2 3's end a match

-This needs to be changed immediately, no question this can have a detrimental affect on the action.

2. 7 point tech fall

- Way too low, needs to be 10points

3. Overtime/criteria for tied match

-I think the other two need changed more than this does

4. 5 point throw ending a match

- I could live with having two types of "knockout" punches and a five is very rare on the freestyle side of things

 

I agree 100% with your order as a wrestler, however from a casual fan's point of view I think #2 and #3 need to be switched. Fans LOVE overtime. I've never heard anyone in my lifetime watch a 2ot or 3ot game and come away saying 'that sure was boring' and wish it would have ended in regulation. If we're trying to sell the sport, I think we absolutely NEED overtime.

 

At the Senior World level, 7pt techfall is too low, but it does usually signify that you are better than your opponent. But hitting two 3's means nothing other than you got 6 points. Case and point, Nick Simmons and Jimmy Kennedy stopped at 11-9 due to two 3 point moves - ridiculous.

 

Now for the Junior WTT, the two 3's and 7pt TF was an abomination. I'm not sure how we will get parents to have their kids wrestle the international styles when the average match will last less than 2 minutes. This needs serious re-working for lower levels.

 

I wish the Senior level would get rid of the idea that we need to get a whole bracket done in one day. That's the source of all of these "shortening match" rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The action level under the current rules is very high. I imagine that FILA won't make significant changes until the wrestlers begin to adjust to the rules and the scoring drops off significantly.

 

The overtime/criteria thing is difficult to gauge without data in front of you. You need to see how much scoring there is in the last 30-60 seconds of the matches under both systems. With criteria, presumably the competitors wrestle harder during regulation, which is supposed to be the idea. I'm sure that FILA is afraid of passive wrestlers frequently dragging overtime out past the five minute mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quanon:

 

I agree with you. But your comments are the major issue I have with FILA. "These rules will suffice until the competitors adjust and then we will create new rules."

 

Create a simple set of rules and then DON'T CHANGE THEM.

 

From a fan's point of view, action or not, criteria is stupid. FILA needs to stop thinking about what they want to see, and start looking at things from a fan's perspective. If it's not easily understandable, it's not a good rule.

 

I can't believe our board of wrestling officials at the world level (FILA) can't function beyond what is good for right now. This has been the whole process of continued change for as long as I can remember. They are the poster-child for unintended consequences.

 

1's, 2's, and 3's with a set time period and a fall ends the match is the simplest way to score wrestling and in turn, would generate the most action and fan appreciation in the long-run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the Senior World level, 7pt techfall is too low, but it does usually signify that you are better than your opponent. But hitting two 3's means nothing other than you got 6 points. Case and point, Nick Simmons and Jimmy Kennedy stopped at 11-9 due to two 3 point moves - ridiculous.

 

Now for the Junior WTT, the two 3's and 7pt TF was an abomination. I'm not sure how we will get parents to have their kids wrestle the international styles when the average match will last less than 2 minutes. This needs serious re-working for lower levels.

Totally agree about the Junior WTT.

 

At the Jr. Greco World Duals last month there were a lot of very quick matches.

 

But at the Sr. level I like the action created by the 7 pt delta.

 

In freestyle it's no longer 3 2 minute periods of hand-fighting waiting to see who lucks out pulling which color from the sack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tirapell-

I'm in total agreement with you. The rules should be set and change VERY infrequently, and only after years of data have been collected with test tournaments. But that is simply not the way it is done, and the way things are done are not likely to change.

 

FILA had a mandate to come up with simpler rules -- you see the result.

 

I know that Andy Hrovat advocated hard for a simple set of rules -- one period, unlimited overtime, no automatic passivity calls, and a fifteen-second turn clock for the man on top. Keep the push out.

 

As far as I'm concerned, that's an excellent and fair set of rules. Here's the problem: we know what will eventually happen with those rules: very low scoring matches. That doesn't bother me, but it's not ideal for growing a spectator base.

 

When I looked at scoring rates at medal matches in the Worlds over the last few years, I found that the earlier that the wrestlers broke the tie (at least under a criteria scoring system) the more points were scored in each period. In my view, the key to increasing action -- permanently -- is to keep periods short, to keep a tennis match style of scoring, and to force one man to score. The only way to do that without handing out cautions for passivity is to have a small interior circle. At the beginning of every period, there's a 2-3 meter circle -- if anyone scores, it is irrelevant, but otherwise, the first to step out loses either a point or a criteria tiebreaker if the period stays 0-0. No overtimes -- if you have overtimes, as soon as the score is tied, there is no longer an incentive for either wrestler to push the action. This idea hasn't gained traction yet (although I know that Gable wants a 5 meter circle during unlimited overtimes, which is another interior circle idea). Maybe the idea will become popular after a few more iterations of the rules. As far as I can tell, most people don't like the tennis match scoring, because it is not intuitive.

 

FILA's solution to increasing action has been to give referees the power to hand out cautions for passivity. This is problematic, because it puts a lot of power in the hands of referees to determine the outcome of the match -- which is why the rules eliminated passivity altogether throughout most of the last decade. The remarkable thing about this is that FILA's mandate for new rules specifically wanted more objectivity, and less referee input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that's hard to explain but easy to understand if you know how risk/reward works is that if you make mistakes easier to overcome, you'll see more wrestlers willing to make mistakes (ie action).

 

If I have 6 minutes to outscore you and I know I have 1's, 2's and 3's with which to do it and they are all judged pretty objectively, I'm not going to be as concerned about giving up a single score. If I have to worry about shot clocks, tie-break criteria, big moves ending matches, and getting caught in a single series of holds and getting tech-falled, I can't be nearly as loose with my wrestling as I could without these unnecessary nuances. You are right, that as soon as the 0-0 tie is broken action picks up. But the best way to get the 0-0 tie broken is to make the first point scored not that big of an obstacle to overcome. Then you'll have both wrestlers more willing to make that first mistake.

 

Look at the old 3 separate period system. While it was supposed to encourage action as you only have 2 mins to score or you go to the clinch, all it really did was make wrestlers more afraid to make a single mistake, as usually 1 mistake cost you the period. Wrestling was as boring as ever under that system, a system designed to "create action".

 

Some action is inherrant and unchangable. This comes down to style and the way a wrestler approaches a match. Nick Simmons will always have high scoring bouts, regardless of opponent. Other wrestlers have a more defensive mindset and will never score 10 points regardless of what rules you give them. We have learn to appreciate wrestling for what it is. Give wrestlers the objective rules they need to understand how to score, the time they need to wrestle, and the scoring system they need to make mistakes easy to overcome.

 

In my opinion, the 3's and 5's rule is going to decrease action, especially after 1 wrestler gets a 3 point move. Because now you have to be worried about giving up a second 3 point move. If these nonsequitors weren't in place (like they shouldn't be), all I'd be worried about is the scoreboard and the time on the clock. If you're losing, you need more points before the time runs out. Wrestlers understand that, fans understand that, and it's easy to follow and cheer along with. THAT is the greatest form of action creation and it's pure, not artificial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I have 6 minutes to outscore you and I know I have 1's, 2's and 3's with which to do it and they are all judged pretty objectively, I'm not going to be as concerned about giving up a single score.

Why aren't all scores valued the same, as one point? This would be a more logical system, and make mistakes easy to overcome. The reason is that the wrestling community has decided that some moves are more valuable (more difficult, more entertaining) than others. I've already explained that I prefer 5-point throws, although I don't think it makes that much of a difference. But if we want action, according to what you are saying, we shouldn't make any distinction in points at all.

 

If I have to worry about shot clocks, tie-break criteria, big moves ending matches, and getting caught in a single series of holds and getting tech-falled, I can't be nearly as loose with my wrestling as I could without these unnecessary nuances.
I agree. The only the criteria should be last to score wins. I should have said that above.

 

You are right, that as soon as the 0-0 tie is broken action picks up. But the best way to get the 0-0 tie broken is to make the first point scored not that big of an obstacle to overcome. Then you'll have both wrestlers more willing to make that first mistake.

The "best" way, as far as I'm concerned, is the way which ensures that a score will occur quickly in every match. Which is why I believe the small interior circle is important. If we rely on wrestler's willingness to recover from mistakes to ensure action, we're screwed. Think of how many low-scoring matches you've seen in your lifetime.

 

Look at the old 3 separate period system. While it was supposed to encourage action as you only have 2 mins to score or you go to the clinch, all it really did was make wrestlers more afraid to make a single mistake, as usually 1 mistake cost you the period. Wrestling was as boring as ever under that system, a system designed to "create action".
This is the argument that FILA/Stan Dziedzic alluded to in their description of the new rules. Don't forget that this system was embraced because the old system -- similar to the new new system -- produced so many low-scoring matches. Remember when there was overtime if no one scored three points? Remember how many overtimes there were under that system?

 

It could definitely be that I'm wrong about the period-reset system creating more action. But I'd need to see some data.

 

In my opinion, the 3's and 5's rule is going to decrease action, especially after 1 wrestler gets a 3 point move. Because now you have to be worried about giving up a second 3 point move. If these nonsequitors weren't in place (like they shouldn't be), all I'd be worried about is the scoreboard and the time on the clock. If you're losing, you need more points before the time runs out. Wrestlers understand that, fans understand that, and it's easy to follow and cheer along with. THAT is the greatest form of action creation and it's pure, not artificial.
You may be right, but so far, there's been more action. Of course, there's always more action after a rule change, then action drops again after a couple years. They've put the rules in place because they want to encourage throws, because feet-to-back action is considered to be more valuable than other action.

 

 

Look -- you have to balance three things: objectivity, action, and simplicity. Getting any two of them is easy, but all three is hard. Plus, you have to keep in mind that wrestlers will adjust to any rules set, which generally has meant turning the matches into stallfests. If FILA were willing to adopt a single set of very simple rules, keep the refs out of it, and accept low-scoring matches, I would be fine with that. I don't see that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the old 3 separate period system. While it was supposed to encourage action as you only have 2 mins to score or you go to the clinch, all it really did was make wrestlers more afraid to make a single mistake, as usually 1 mistake cost you the period. Wrestling was as boring as ever under that system, a system designed to "create action".

I'll say something else about this -- the 3 period system was not a failed system in terms of creating action (in freestyle -- Greco was extremely low scoring). In the medal matches, there was an average of 2.1 points per period from 2009-2011, and 2.7 points per period in 2012.

 

As far as I was concerned, it was an unacceptable system because the clinch was patently unfair. In terms of creating action, it wasn't bad, especially considering that there were no passivity calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a possibly theory on the increase in scoring with these new rules.

 

The 2-pont takedown. Look at it this way, if I take a not so good attempt and get exposed, I can still come out on top and be tied(plus be in the lead too). In the old rules you were essentially down 2 points in the same scenario(2-1 score). The reward for the most common type of score has gone up and thus the action will increase.

 

With this point increase I do not believe you will see as much of a drop-off in scoring as you did with the 3-period format. In all honesty I think the takedown being worth 2-points is more responsible for the increase in scoring than the 2-3minute period change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I have 6 minutes to outscore you and I know I have 1's' date=' 2's and 3's with which to do it and they are all judged pretty objectively, I'm not going to be as concerned about giving up a single score.[/quote']

Why aren't all scores valued the same, as one point? This would be a more logical system, and make mistakes easy to overcome. The reason is that the wrestling community has decided that some moves are more valuable (more difficult, more entertaining) than others. I've already explained that I prefer 5-point throws, although I don't think it makes that much of a difference. But if we want action, according to what you are saying, we shouldn't make any distinction in points at all.

 

I'm not 100% opposed. But it's more like basketball than soccer. 3 pointers are more difficult that 2 pointers which are more difficult than free-throws. But all are JUST points, not criteria or match-enders. Major difference. But if you gave me the choice between what we have now and all scores being equal, I'd take all scores being equal.

 

If I have to worry about shot clocks, tie-break criteria, big moves ending matches, and getting caught in a single series of holds and getting tech-falled, I can't be nearly as loose with my wrestling as I could without these unnecessary nuances.
I agree. The only the criteria should be last to score wins. I should have said that above.

 

I can't get over not having overtime. People love overtime. If we're playing to the fans, I just can't see a scenario where overtime is a bad idea.

 

You are right, that as soon as the 0-0 tie is broken action picks up. But the best way to get the 0-0 tie broken is to make the first point scored not that big of an obstacle to overcome. Then you'll have both wrestlers more willing to make that first mistake.

The "best" way, as far as I'm concerned, is the way which ensures that a score will occur quickly in every match. Which is why I believe the small interior circle is important. If we rely on wrestler's willingness to recover from mistakes to ensure action, we're screwed. Think of how many low-scoring matches you've seen in your lifetime.

 

But now you're messing with the purity of the sport. That's like starting each hockey game with only 3 players on the ice to "ensure" a goal happens. Or starting each football game inside the 20yd line to make sure a TD or field goal happens. I agree with what you are saying but at some point, it's wrestling. There's only so much we can do to "aid" action without sacrificing what the sport really is.

 

Look at the old 3 separate period system. While it was supposed to encourage action as you only have 2 mins to score or you go to the clinch, all it really did was make wrestlers more afraid to make a single mistake, as usually 1 mistake cost you the period. Wrestling was as boring as ever under that system, a system designed to "create action".
This is the argument that FILA/Stan Dziedzic alluded to in their description of the new rules. Don't forget that this system was embraced because the old system -- similar to the new new system -- produced so many low-scoring matches. Remember when there was overtime if no one scored three points? Remember how many overtimes there were under that system?

 

It could definitely be that I'm wrong about the period-reset system creating more action. But I'd need to see some data.

 

With the rules in place today (the basic rules), wrestling is much easier to score. The pushout has helped that and more importantly, the 2pt TD makes taking risk more appealing and less of a detriment if you do get countered. These 2 changes will have a huge impact on scoring in a 6 min match. If both athletes refuse to score, I'm not sure than can ever be changed. But what can be changed is making 1 score less of an obstacle to overcome.

 

In my opinion, the 3's and 5's rule is going to decrease action, especially after 1 wrestler gets a 3 point move. Because now you have to be worried about giving up a second 3 point move. If these nonsequitors weren't in place (like they shouldn't be), all I'd be worried about is the scoreboard and the time on the clock. If you're losing, you need more points before the time runs out. Wrestlers understand that, fans understand that, and it's easy to follow and cheer along with. THAT is the greatest form of action creation and it's pure, not artificial.
You may be right, but so far, there's been more action. Of course, there's always more action after a rule change, then action drops again after a couple years. They've put the rules in place because they want to encourage throws, because feet-to-back action is considered to be more valuable than other action.

 

Look -- you have to balance three things: objectivity, action, and simplicity. Getting any two of them is easy, but all three is hard. Plus, you have to keep in mind that wrestlers will adjust to any rules set, which generally has meant turning the matches into stallfests. If FILA were willing to adopt a single set of very simple rules, keep the refs out of it, and accept low-scoring matches, I would be fine with that. I don't see that happening.

 

I agree with you. But two (objectivity and simplicity) are in our control. Action is NOT. For me, that's a major part of the problem. We keep trying to change the thing we have the least control over. Focus on great objective rules and simplicity if you're FILA.

 

As an aside, you can't pardon FILA like they've never had action. The 1970's and 1980's had PLENTY of action. Rule changes have been the major source of decreased action, not wrestlers. If you look at each rule change than has happened in the last 30 years, they have all decreased action because of not really understanding what was in their control and what was not ("unintended consequences").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the old 3 separate period system. While it was supposed to encourage action as you only have 2 mins to score or you go to the clinch, all it really did was make wrestlers more afraid to make a single mistake, as usually 1 mistake cost you the period. Wrestling was as boring as ever under that system, a system designed to "create action".

I'll say something else about this -- the 3 period system was not a failed system in terms of creating action (in freestyle -- Greco was extremely low scoring). In the medal matches, there was an average of 2.1 points per period from 2009-2011, and 2.7 points per period in 2012.

 

As far as I was concerned, it was an unacceptable system because the clinch was patently unfair. In terms of creating action, it wasn't bad, especially considering that there were no passivity calls.

 

You'd need to re-run your numbers taking out all points scored after 2 minutes (ie from the clinch), as those are not real scores from a netural perspective.

 

I'd guess if you did that, the scoring averages would go dramatically down and would illustrate exactly what we're all pointing out, that you can't really control "action".

 

There are hundereds of rules that would make scoring increase if you don't have any regard for the sport of wrestling. The idea is to have rules that encourage the athletes to score because it's beter for them, not scare them into scoring because you'll penalize them if they don't.

 

FILA has never figured this one out. All of their rules are based around punishing negative behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tirapell:

 

I can tell that you haven't been looking at the international boards over the past few years. I have hashed a lot of this discussion out with Stan Dziedzic and others while he was talking on here. The reason that I started taking statistics from worlds was to attempt to prove to Stan that the clinch was not working and needed to be eliminated. The numbers I gave you do not include clinch points -- no one despised the clinch more than me.

 

My numbers do include pushout points, however. This is one of the problems with comparing scoring rates from different eras. I see that as legitimate scoring -- others see it as "ruining the purity of the sport," etc. Comparing current scores to past scores is a problem, because takedowns are two now -- so the old 2.1 points per period would probably be more like 3.5 points per period. Another problem is that current matches are so short, and techfalls come so quickly. You're really comparing apples and oranges.

 

Another couple of points here: what I see as ruining the sport and what others see as ruining the sport will differ. To me, wrestling inside a 2 meter circle is still wrestling. You control the opponent and the space, and the conditions are equal for both opponents. Wrestling continues after a score or a pushout into the normal space -- only the tie is broken.

 

To me, if you add strikes or submissions or arbitrary positions like clinches, you ruin the integrity of the sport. Other people would be fine with seeing submissions. Wrestling in the ancient Olympics included submissions. When I brought up the interior circle with some of the national level freestyle coaches, one of the objections is that they would need to change the way they coach. For this reason, I understand why athletes and coaches would resent my proposal about the interior circle -- but I also understand the alternatives, which are constantly fluctuating rules sets or low scoring matches. People resent having to change the way they train -- people resented the pushout.

 

Having said that, two meters is a tight circle. With a 2 meter circle, one of the wrestlers will step out quickly, and the tie will be broken. Then the real wrestling starts. As far as I'm concerned, the purity of the sport would be enhanced, because people would actually wrestle throughout the match. It may be hard to understand my concern about lack of action now, given the new rules, but I fear that this may be an issue again in a few years, once the competitors adjust to the current rules.

 

Now, of course, the current rules set has passivity. Passivity is a game changer. You absolutely CAN legislate action with the rules (if you couldn't we wouldn't be discussing anything at all). The periods of high scores in the 1980s had referees that called passivity constantly. The problem, as I said before, is that referees could influence or determine the outcome of matches. The sport had a real integrity problem then, and that could always occur again.

 

I want a rules set that is simple, but complex enough to require action, WITHOUT allowing referees to influence the match. That's a tough ask. I'm sure there are a number of ways to get there, and I'm fine with a number of alternatives -- but we have to understand the trade offs. The history of the sport suggests that a simple rules set that does not force action is going to result in widespread stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a possibly theory on the increase in scoring with these new rules.

 

The 2-pont takedown. Look at it this way, if I take a not so good attempt and get exposed, I can still come out on top and be tied(plus be in the lead too). In the old rules you were essentially down 2 points in the same scenario(2-1 score). The reward for the most common type of score has gone up and thus the action will increase.

 

With this point increase I do not believe you will see as much of a drop-off in scoring as you did with the 3-period format. In all honesty I think the takedown being worth 2-points is more responsible for the increase in scoring than the 2-3minute period change.

Have you seen the scoring over time chart that FILA put out? It would take me a while to track down, but I know that I've posted it in another thread somewhere. Scoring always increases after rules changes, then it trends downward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a possibly theory on the increase in scoring with these new rules.

 

The 2-pont takedown. Look at it this way, if I take a not so good attempt and get exposed, I can still come out on top and be tied(plus be in the lead too). In the old rules you were essentially down 2 points in the same scenario(2-1 score). The reward for the most common type of score has gone up and thus the action will increase.

 

With this point increase I do not believe you will see as much of a drop-off in scoring as you did with the 3-period format. In all honesty I think the takedown being worth 2-points is more responsible for the increase in scoring than the 2-3minute period change.

Have you seen the scoring over time chart that FILA put out? It would take me a while to track down, but I know that I've posted it in another thread somewhere. Scoring always increases after rules changes, then it trends downward.

I have seen that you have posted that.

 

The increase this time however seems to be much higher than usual after a big rule change(at least from what my small brain can remember).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The increase might be bigger than in the past -- it certainly feels that way. We're not going to know until the World medal matches. Right off the bat, the scores should increase by something like 75-85%, because one point takedowns now count for two, and they always account for a big majority of the total scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... ay-anymore

 

Brent Metcalf was asked whether the rules changes benefited him. I thought his answer was very revealing: he said that under the old system, each period was like the last two minutes of a match, and wrestling didn't really start until about a minute in, at which point there was very little time left -- and therefore a lot of pressure to score throughout the whole match. Under the new rules, he can just relax and flow through the match.

 

I think his description is really apt. The old system was supposed to pressure wrestlers into scoring, and the new system is supposed to give them time to feel their way into scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quanon:

 

You have some great points. I do disagree that you can legislate action. You can make RULES, but you can't force wrestlers to be active from a neutral perspective. Yes, you can introduce stalling and shot clocks and ball grabs and clinches, but with truly objective rules, you can't get wrestlers to be more active by making rules based on negative reinforcement.

 

What you can do is make the risk/reward equation more in balance. I think that has taken a major step toward balance with a 2pt TD and a 1pt step-out. However, I think it takes a step backward with the two 3's ending a match and one 5 ending a match. If you are afraid of taking risk because the reward is not great enough, then action will decrease. I'm not sure yet on the 7pt TF, if that will be an encouragement to score, or a punishment for making mistakes. If it's the latter, scoring will decrease rapidly as wrestlers figure it out.

 

Wrestling is very much a "Game Theory" type sport. In it's simplest form, there are 4 outcomes controled by 2 independent parties, Wrestler A and Wreslter B:

1. Neither wreslter takes risk

2. Wrestler A takes risk while Wrestler B does not

3. Wrestler A takes risk while Wrestler B does not

4. Both wrestlers take risk

 

The best way to win a match (by the odds) has to be to choose to take risk. If we can create rules that reward the risk more than we punish it, we will see more action. But we absolutely cannot legislate action. This is what FILA has tried to do for the past 20-30 years, and you've seen the results. I can't force you to think a certain way any more than you can force me to wrestle a certain way. You can give me the rules I need to make wrestling the way you want me to the most beneficial to me, but that's where it stops.

 

Hope this all makes sense. I love discussing rules and human psychology. I wish we had a few more psychologists on the FILA board and fewer "wrestling champions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrestling is very much a "Game Theory" type sport. In it's simplest form, there are 4 outcomes controled by 2 independent parties, Wrestler A and Wreslter B:

1. Neither wreslter takes risk

2. Wrestler A takes risk while Wrestler B does not

3. Wrestler A takes risk while Wrestler B does not

4. Both wrestlers take risk

 

The best way to win a match (by the odds) has to be to choose to take risk. If we can create rules that reward the risk more than we punish it, we will see more action. But we absolutely cannot legislate action. This is what FILA has tried to do for the past 20-30 years, and you've seen the results. I can't force you to think a certain way any more than you can force me to wrestle a certain way. You can give me the rules I need to make wrestling the way you want me to the most beneficial to me, but that's where it stops.

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm unsure what you mean when you say we cannot legislate action. Do you mean that we SHOULD not? Because we definitely can. The clinch was legislated action. Back when the refs would ding you for stalling when you backed up, that was also legislated action. Stalling calls in folkstyle legislate action. In my opinion, the rules need to compel/legislate action without the referees getting involved, because referees are human -- they can make mistakes, and they can be biased or worse in some cases.

 

Anyway, you're right -- the rules should have more carrots than sticks, because they'll be more effective that way. A number of people have said that offensive takedowns should be worth more points than defensive takedowns. That's problematic, because offense is in the eye of the beholder. Others have said make the first takedown worth more points than subsequent takedowns, in order to initiate early scoring. That's problematic, because you don't want to discourage comebacks. I don't think anyone's proposed the reverse -- that later takedowns become worth more points as the match goes on. That would definitely encourage people to pour it on -- but only if the reward of attempting high-scoring takedowns outweighs the risk of getting taken down defensively. In fact, what you would likely end up with is two opponents that refuse to attempt anything, fearing that the match would get out of hand. (You could have takedowns worth 1 if you are tied or ahead, and 2 if you're behind, but I doubt that anyone would go for it.)

 

I'll throw out another idea I've had, but that I haven't bothered to share, because it's unlikely that it would gain traction. Most of the problem with action in wrestling is that wrestlers can back up or circle away from one another. When forced to stand their ground or move forward, action ensues (this is why people used to throw more -- the threat of passivity/stalling calls for backing up).

 

Here's a way to force wrestlers to move forward without getting the referee involved:

Draw concentric circles on the mat. If neutral action starts in the innermost circle, it's scored as normal. If action starts in the next circle out, the point values are doubled. If in the outermost circle, the point values are tripled.

 

We know that two evenly matched, highly skilled wrestlers will not risk throwing matches away by wandering out of the middle of the circle. So matches just won't leave the center of the mat -- and there will be a lot of action, because there won't be anywhere to avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"i feel like i'm taking crazy pills."

 

just stop. the current set of rules aren't perfect, no set will ever be. wrestling will be much better off if we advocate to leave the rules alone for an extended period of time, 4-8 yrs. let's see what happens for a quad or 2. these are the best we've had in a long time. changing the rules never, ever, worked long term and it never will. leave them alone.

 

let the sport evolve naturally without having to conform to new sets of rules that will never accomplish what is intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"i feel like i'm taking crazy pills."

 

just stop. the current set of rules aren't perfect, no set will ever be. wrestling will be much better off if we advocate to leave the rules alone for an extended period of time, 4-8 yrs. let's see what happens for a quad or 2. these are the best we've had in a long time. changing the rules never, ever, worked long term and it never will. leave them alone.

 

let the sport evolve naturally without having to conform to new sets of rules that will never accomplish what is intended.

 

I think you wandered into the wrong thread. You were looking for one of the 15 "how Dake can beat Burroughs" topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like these rules. There are a couple of things that concern me -- the shot clock could become a real problem, for example. But I thought the last set of rules was also pretty good, except for the clinch.

 

I think keeping the rules as they are for a cycle or two would probably be a good idea.

A) that won't happen. Let's not kid ourselves.

B) in the meantime, there should be multiple, competing SETS of rules that should be tested in test tournaments and at training centers around the world. Statistics should be kept, so that the next set of rules is just not a cobbled together compromise, a shot in the dark based on theorizing alone.

C) that won't happen either. Let's not kid ourselves.

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...