Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Richard_Immel

New Rules boil down to 2 matches

Recommended Posts

I want to bring up two matches from this past weekend and get some discussion going around them regarding the new rules. The first is the Dake v Howe OT match. It was crazy!! Give it a look and tell me how you could not want overtime

 

 

The next one is Jimmy Kennedy vs Nick Simmons. This one was a wild one that ended because of the two 3 point moves being a tech rule.

 

 

I think these are the two matches that prove to us how the rules should be. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much all wrestling fans agree with you on each point, and these matches illustrate it well, but unfortunately it's not the fans who make the rules.

 

FILA seems to have other priorities in mind (as others have pointed out), one of the main ones being ending the match quickly whenever possible. There's definitely politics at play as well, since it seems the Russians are against the 2 point takedown rule.....maybe the 2 3 point throws was some type of compromise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time overtime is brought up we always hear the international response is not to have is because of the fatigue factor involved. They claim it would hurt the better wrestlers chances of winning later matches in the current set up of one day tournaments. Not sure how much that's true unless you get into several over-time matches, but that has been the only argument I can even see being useful against it.

 

 

As far as the 2-3pts throws. I'm willing to accept it more if they were two clean 3pt throws. When its a 3pt-2pt situation from a shoting takedown scramble I do agree that's a little harder to swollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats a BS excuse Mad tho… why would anyone take that seriously?

 

You don't want your best wrestlers to lose in OT? Tell them to get in better shape then OR earn more points in regulation time.

 

No clue, but its brought up all the time when someone wonders why the international community wants criteria rather than OT. And it's not the worry of losing in the OT they complain about. It's the fact their guy may win, but get some fatigued from the extra grind that they are at a disadvantage against the next tough opponent they face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's another fun one in which the 2 3's come in to play.

 

Rogers leads 5-0 at the break. Brooks hits two 3's in :26 and ends the match. wouldn't have minded seing this match continue....

 

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... oks-112549

 

I like the rule in this match, I think Brooks goes for the threes to end it. Otherwise he might have played safer to get back in. Also, how can you not love Herbert as an announcer. Best we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So based on some peoples logic....if a wrestler is up 5-0, but get's "caught" on his back and pinned, they should still continue to wrestle? Point being....I totally understand the 2-3's rule....if you are up 5-0 and have a mental breakdown, or get "caught" for 2-3's, you should lose the match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... ?Frontpage

 

quote:

Dake reached the finals by beating Andrew Howe after nearly six minutes of overtime wrestling.

 

“When you look at it — two points in six minutes — I don’t think there was six minutes in any other freestyle match, men or women, that had that low of scoring,” Dziedzic said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130625/SPORTS/130625046/Chapter-19-of-Wrestling-s-Olympic-Fight-U-S-Russia-throw-FILA-a-curveball-by-changing-rules?Frontpage

 

quote:

Dake reached the finals by beating Andrew Howe after nearly six minutes of overtime wrestling.

 

“When you look at it — two points in six minutes — I don’t think there was six minutes in any other freestyle match, men or women, that had that low of scoring,” Dziedzic said.

 

Must have forgot the 4 points scored in regulation and a few unbelievable scrambles that resulted in no point awarded. Only tweak I can see is toweling them off after a few min. and for the sake of winner fatigue maybe not letting OT go on indefinitely.

 

 

Here is a more telling quote though:

"I would rather have had them both use the exact rules and gather data, but now that they did it, now they’ve got to sort of make excuses," Dziedzic said. "But it would be better thing for the sport if both had used the rules that were printed.”

 

Did we even get the printed rules actually straightened out from the wording issues that were found?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan Dziedzic needs to start thinking from a fan's persepctive. What I remember was people standing on their feet, cheering during OT, between Dake and Howe and again between Dake and Burroughs. Funny how he remembers it being boring and low scoring...

 

All I know is that in my 35 years, in all my years of watching sports, I've never seen an athletic contest go into overtime and come away from that contest saying it was 'boring' or how I wish it had ended in regulation. In fact, some of the most meorable contests of all time have gone into overtime or multiple overtimes. THAT should be enough wisdom to implement overtime. Fans love it. That's the problem with wrestling -- we don't cater to fans. We come up with our own "better" solution because some num-nuts in FILA decided with NO empyrical evidence whatsoever, that fans "want" shorter matches.

 

I seriously cannot get over Stan's comments on overtime. Talk about only seeing what you want to see. Incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is this:

 

Is there more scoring in regulation under criteria tiebreaks or overtime?

 

Comparing Russian nationals to US nationals can't give us the answer, because it's apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real question is this:

 

Is there more scoring in regulation under criteria tiebreaks or overtime?

 

Comparing Russian nationals to US nationals can't give us the answer, because it's apples and oranges.

 

I disagree. That's NOT the real question. The real question is, WHAT DO FANS WANT? And on that note, what's more marketable to a media (TV, internet, etc) audience?

 

Why are we so hung up on scoring? Scoring is an important factor, but it's ONE factor. I'll take a 3-3 match that goes into overtime with scoring that makes sense over an 8-6 match where no one understands what's happening any day.

 

That's the real probelm here. Some idiot thinks that by adding criteria, you'll get more scoring in regulation which is equal to more excitement. But that's only 1/2 of the equation. What about the drag on excitement from fans not knowing the criteria, the criteria not really making logical sense for sports, and eliminating one of the most exciting aspects of athletics- overtime? There are always two sides to the coin.

 

Some things are just better because fans like them more. There's no rational explanation for people loving overtime other than a heightened sense of drama, with the final score winning the match. Watch a movie, the ultimate drama source -- every single sports movie comes down to a final shot or moment for the win or loss.

 

My entire point in this rant is that you can't determine that criteria is better than having overtime because scores in regulation are higher. Scoring can be artificially inflated -- see FILA for the last 20 years -- but excitment is real and derived from drama and understanding of the contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I know is that in my 35 years, in all my years of watching sports, I've never seen an athletic contest go into overtime and come away from that contest saying it was 'boring' or how I wish it had ended in regulation. In fact, some of the most meorable contests of all time have gone into overtime or multiple overtimes. THAT should be enough wisdom to implement overtime. Fans love it. That's the problem with wrestling -- we don't cater to fans. We come up with our own "better" solution because some num-nuts in FILA decided with NO empyrical evidence whatsoever, that fans "want" shorter matches.

Hall v Paulsen for the 55kg Greco spot on the 2004 Olympic team.

 

Approx 17 minutes of exciting wrestling (and these weren't leg grabbers!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I know is that in my 35 years, in all my years of watching sports, I've never seen an athletic contest go into overtime and come away from that contest saying it was 'boring' or how I wish it had ended in regulation. In fact, some of the most meorable contests of all time have gone into overtime or multiple overtimes. THAT should be enough wisdom to implement overtime. Fans love it. That's the problem with wrestling -- we don't cater to fans. We come up with our own "better" solution because some num-nuts in FILA decided with NO empyrical evidence whatsoever, that fans "want" shorter matches.

Hall v Paulsen for the 55kg Greco spot on the 2004 Olympic team.

 

Approx 17 minutes of exciting wrestling (and these weren't leg grabbers!).

 

Standing ovation during and after the overtime...and there was absolutely NO scoring. Wonder why fans liked it and still remember that match? Drama.

 

It was recently listed as one of the top matches of all time. Imagine that, an overtime match that went 17 minutes.

 

Though I guess criteria would have gotten the FILA officials out sooner to the bars, so there is some downside...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's another fun one in which the 2 3's come in to play.

 

Rogers leads 5-0 at the break. Brooks hits two 3's in :26 and ends the match. wouldn't have minded seing this match continue....

 

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... oks-112549

 

I know this isn't exactly related to the topic at hand but to me it looks like the first two that Roger's gets in this match is almost EXACTLY the same position dake had Burrough's in during OT. In Burrogh's match the ref let it ride a little longer and Burroughs ended up tilting him back for 2 while this ref gave 2 to Rogers earlier in the scramble.

 

Did Burroughs get the benefit of the doubt? Or was this takedown awarded too early? Or am I just looking for something that isn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's another fun one in which the 2 3's come in to play.

 

Rogers leads 5-0 at the break. Brooks hits two 3's in :26 and ends the match. wouldn't have minded seing this match continue....

 

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... oks-112549

 

I know this isn't exactly related to the topic at hand but to me it looks like the first two that Roger's gets in this match is almost EXACTLY the same position dake had Burrough's in during OT. In Burrogh's match the ref let it ride a little longer and Burroughs ended up tilting him back for 2 while this ref gave 2 to Rogers earlier in the scramble.

 

Did Burroughs get the benefit of the doubt? Or was this takedown awarded too early? Or am I just looking for something that isn't there?

 

IMO the TD was called too early in the Brooks vs Rogers match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's another fun one in which the 2 3's come in to play.

 

Rogers leads 5-0 at the break. Brooks hits two 3's in :26 and ends the match. wouldn't have minded seing this match continue....

 

 

http://www.flowrestling.org/coverage/25 ... oks-112549

 

I like the rule in this match, I think Brooks goes for the threes to end it. Otherwise he might have played safer to get back in. Also, how can you not love Herbert as an announcer. Best we have.

 

I think Brooks goes for the throws because it was a way to put points on the board in a match he's losing, not because of the added incentive of ending the match. He would attempt those exact same throws without that dumb rule in place because he's good at it and was launching everybody he wrestled that day.

 

I'm glad Sammy won but I think that match as well as the Kennedy-Simmons match should have continued without being stopped in the middle of a competitive match with somebody being declared the victor because they supposedly demonstrated "technical superiority" :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real question is, WHAT DO FANS WANT? And on that note, what's more marketable to a media (TV, internet, etc) audience?

 

Why are we so hung up on scoring? Scoring is an important factor, but it's ONE factor. I'll take a 3-3 match that goes into overtime with scoring that makes sense over an 8-6 match where no one understands what's happening any day.

 

I'm interested in scoring rates because they are measurable. If it turns out that there's higher scoring in regulation under overtime rules, great. If it turns out that there is more scoring under criteria, the question becomes, how much more? You need weigh the data to get a feel for which rules set would be best.

 

For instance, as far as getting live wrestling on TV, for scheduling shows and commercials, you need to be able to know when matches will stop -- a problem for overtime. That problem can be overcome if the excitement created by overtime is sufficiently high -- but think about mainstream spectator sports. They all try to limit the length of their overtimes, with the exception of a few Grand Slam Tennis events (where there's recently been a push to change the rules so that really long matches can't happen).

 

What fans want is good wrestling matches - not necessarily overtime. I'll give you an example. If matches are generally action packed, and one or two matches between highly regarded wrestlers go into overtime, then the tournament is exciting and the overtime matches are "epic". On the other hand, if most matches have very little scoring, overtime occurs constantly, and sudden death overtimes regularly stretch past the ten minute mark, then watching the matches becomes a chore for everyone.

 

As I've said before, I think there should only be one tie-breaking criteria -- last to score wins. However, different criteria could be tested, to determine if some really do encourage more action (like the 2 3s rule). If so, any increased action would have to be weighed against the added layer of complexity in the rules.

 

I don't have a problem with overtime. But I'd need some data to be convinced that it is ALWAYS better than tie-breaking criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real question is, WHAT DO FANS WANT? And on that note, what's more marketable to a media (TV, internet, etc) audience?

 

Why are we so hung up on scoring? Scoring is an important factor, but it's ONE factor. I'll take a 3-3 match that goes into overtime with scoring that makes sense over an 8-6 match where no one understands what's happening any day.

 

I'm interested in scoring rates because they are measurable. If it turns out that there's higher scoring in regulation under overtime rules, great. If it turns out that there is more scoring under criteria, the question becomes, how much more? You need weigh the data to get a feel for which rules set would be best.

 

For instance, as far as getting live wrestling on TV, for scheduling shows and commercials, you need to be able to know when matches will stop -- a problem for overtime. That problem can be overcome if the excitement created by overtime is sufficiently high -- but think about mainstream spectator sports. They all try to limit the length of their overtimes, with the exception of a few Grand Slam Tennis events (where there's recently been a push to change the rules so that really long matches can't happen).

 

What fans want is good wrestling matches - not necessarily overtime. I'll give you an example. If matches are generally action packed, and one or two matches between highly regarded wrestlers go into overtime, then the tournament is exciting and the overtime matches are "epic". On the other hand, if most matches have very little scoring, overtime occurs constantly, and sudden death overtimes regularly stretch past the ten minute mark, then watching the matches becomes a chore for everyone.

 

As I've said before, I think there should only be one tie-breaking criteria -- last to score wins. However, different criteria could be tested, to determine if some really do encourage more action (like the 2 3s rule). If so, any increased action would have to be weighed against the added layer of complexity in the rules.

 

I don't have a problem with overtime. But I'd need some data to be convinced that it is ALWAYS better than tie-breaking criteria.

 

This is well put, but my point is that I think they are separate things. I don't think having overtime or not having overtime will influence regulation scoring rates in all but the last 30 seconds of the match. If two wrestlers are pretty evenly matched, the only thing not having overtime will do is force the losing wrestler (in a true tie situation) to risk more than he should to make a score happen, because if he doesn't he will lose. With overtime, they can continue with a parity level of risk and let the true dynamics of the match play out. In other words, you're not forcing their hand. You're allowing the wrestlers to wrestle to their strengths, which they've earned by virtue of a tie match (i.e. they are even to this point).

 

And further, who says what criteria is better? Why is last point better than first? Why is fewer high point value scores better than more lower point value scores? That's why the techniques are already assigned points. To use them a 2nd time as a tiebreak doesn't make a lot of sense, since we already know what they were worth.

 

I just don't see any reason for not having SOME form of overtime. If you want my honest opinion, I think you give the wrestlers 2-3 minutes of overtime and then use a smaller circle as the wrestling area to allow for a score if the match hasn't already been decided. I do see the problems with unlimited overtime, though I think it will be rare that athletes go past a few minutes in a tournament situation because they'll have to wrestle again at a big disadvantage. However, in a finals situation they could go on and on but I'm not sure that's a bad thing for wrestling. Most 3OT or 4OT basketball/hockey games I know of are not the ones being referred to as boring.

 

First score wins in any sport is pretty exciting. OR you could use the soccer dynamic and go 2-3 mins of cumulative scoring, so you could actually see back and forth in overtime. Regardless, overtime allows the athletes to determine the match on their terms, not artificial terms like criteria or ball grabs/clinches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So based on some peoples logic....if a wrestler is up 5-0, but get's "caught" on his back and pinned, they should still continue to wrestle? Point being....I totally understand the 2-3's rule....if you are up 5-0 and have a mental breakdown, or get "caught" for 2-3's, you should lose the match.

 

 

Except for the fact that we are talking about an ARBITRARY two moves over the course of a long match determining the winner. The fall is like a knockout punch and tech-fall is supposed to be like a TKO, 2 − 3's is nothing but a way of stopping a match early and picking a winner more at random than anything else.

 

Pinning your opponents shoulders to the mat is HARD and shows dominance which is why it has always been a part of wrestling. Two three's also do not show technical superiority like a 15 pt folk style tech fall or a 10 pt freestyle tech fall would either.

 

Would you be happy to end the match for the first guy to get to three takedowns as well? First to three takedowns wins the match, period. That is just as arbitrary as the two three point moves wins rules.

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...