Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Richard_Immel

New Rules boil down to 2 matches

Recommended Posts

I think implementing an OT is just common sense. UNLIMITED time, first to score, that is logical and is most able to get the best wrestler or the one with the most heart or the most conditioned or whatever else.

 

As others have pointed out, I cannot think of ONE example in sports where fans said "man that OT game was boring! Sure wish I got to go home and go to bed earlier!".

 

It is silly and needlessly complicated to add criteria instead of just allowing a simple OT (and increasing the tech limit to 10 as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

I agree with your reasoning. The reason that I like the period reset system (best of three two minutes -- or maybe even best of 7 one minutes) is that period reset forces continues scoring throughout the match. In a long, cumulative score match, one athlete can score in the first thirty seconds, and the other can wait around for another 4 or 5 minutes without feeling any real pressure. I think there should still be more scoring under a criteria tiebreaker with six cumulative minutes, but not as much as with the period reset system.

 

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.

The last point is only better than the first because it encourages the wrestlers to continue scoring, no matter who scores at the end of regulation. This would affect both wrestlers equally, and therefore be fair. I agree with your other points.

 

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 agree -- using smaller circles solves the problem of forcing action.

 

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.

I'm not sure if having super-long finals is really a problem either. It's a problem for TV packages, but it might be a good thing overall. It can't be allowed to get out of hand, as I discussed above.

 

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.

If overtimes are necessarily exciting, is longer overtime more exciting? How much is too much? Scoring is easy to measure, the excitement value of overtime is pretty tough to measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your reasoning. The reason that I like the period reset system (best of three two minutes -- or maybe even best of 7 one minutes) is that period reset forces continues scoring throughout the match. In a long, cumulative score match, one athlete can score in the first thirty seconds, and the other can wait around for another 4 or 5 minutes without feeling any real pressure. I think there should still be more scoring under a criteria tiebreaker with six cumulative minutes, but not as much as with the period reset system.

 

Can't agree with you on the period reset system. Again, unintended consequences. All that does is force the wrestler to score ONCE in each period. I don't see how that's better than allowing wrestlers to choose when is best for them to score over the course of 6 minutes. The best of 3 periods produced a lot of late score or no score periods with late flurries of action only, followed by the ball grab to break the tie.

 

I think sometimes people don't place enough difficulty on scoring at the World level against the best on the planet. I've seen many exciting matches that don't necessarily produce a score right away. All else equal, scoring is better for the sport and we want to encourage it by giving the wrestlers the best rules TO score (risk/reward again). But we don't want to cross the line, like FILA has done many times, of "forcing" things to occur.

 

The last point is only better than the first because it encourages the wrestlers to continue scoring, no matter who scores at the end of regulation. This would affect both wrestlers equally, and therefore be fair. I agree with your other points.

 

Let me paint you an unintended consequences picture. In essence, since the last point scored wins, the first point is not worth very much. If you score first, you're really only ahead on the tiebreak because if your opponent then scores, you lose. Where in an overtime scenario, there is more value on the first score because even if your opponent scores, you are tied. With less value on the first score (last score wins), then you are inadvertently discouraging action by making the first score worth less.

 

No matter what criteria you use, you are somehow choosing which points are more valuable than other points. And my beef is, they're all points and points are points, no matter how or when you score them.

 

If overtimes are necessarily exciting, is longer overtime more exciting? How much is too much? Scoring is easy to measure, the excitement value of overtime is pretty tough to measure.

 

Well, the World Team Trials had overtime and I remember 2 matches going to overtime. Freestyle rules allow for more quick scoring and 6 minutes is a long time to decide a match. Some matches were stopped prematurely by two 3pt moves and maybe those would have tied, but I think it's a pretty small number going to OT.

 

Scoring is easy to STATISTICALLY measure. You could say the same about scoring. At what point do you reach diminishing returns? 10 points per match? 20? 30? I don't think we'll ever get there but the reason fans like scoring now is because they relate scoring to action. I'm more of an ACTION proponent as action is the cause, scoring is the effect. FILA has artificially effected scoring many times, but you can see that it hasn't led to a better sport.

 

To me, overtime is about drama and the edge of your seat. Someone is going to score and win, and someone is going to get scored on and lose. It creates drama for the fan and that is what makes it exciting. Don't misunderstand me, we don't want tons of matches going to overtime. Under the '3 pt must system' overtime was very common and lost it's appeal. The rules are positioned now for more scoring and more scoring means fewer ties, so that's good for overtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple points.

 

I agree that if you have a "last to score wins" criteria, you diminish the importance of the first score. I know from timing the scoring sequences at Worlds that periods that have a late first score are low-scoring. This is why I believe you have to have a small interior circle to force the initial score. After the initial score, under a tiebreaker system, someone is always "scoring last," so there is always a motivation to continue action. This is especially true when periods are short.

 

Under the '3 pt must system' overtime was very common and lost it's appeal. The rules are positioned now for more scoring and more scoring means fewer ties, so that's good for overtime.

The "3 point must system" was a system that was very close to what most Americans seem to think was ideal: there were virtually no gimmicks. Scores were worth what they were worth, and scoring was very rare. Therefore, overtime was common. Left to their own devices, elite wrestlers take very few risks. I'll watch the elite guys under any circumstances, but if we want to build the sport as a spectator sport, we need to embrace rules that favor offense. The NBA banned zonal defenses, looks the other way on walks, etc. The NFL won't let defenders touch receivers downfield, won't let defenders hit quarterbacks or use horse collar tackle, etc., etc. Offense sells, and diminishing returns on scoring will never be a concern.

 

I wouldn't get too caught up in the current results of the current rules. For example, there weren't many overtimes at WTT this year -- next year may or may not be similar. We need to look at the action level over the long term, especially as wrestlers adjust to the rules. Right now, the rules have pushouts, passivity, low tech falls, and early ends to matches with 3s and 5s. With all of those gimmicks, the likelihood is that scoring per minute is going to be pretty good. Having said that, I don't think anyone thinks the rules are ideal. I'm guessing there will be tweaks immediately after Worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me if the system shows scoring increases or not it doesn't matter. I've seen plenty of exciting low scoring matches, but that's because the guys went hard and were great at scrambling out of moves. Howe vs. Dake would have had a higher score if both guys weren't so tough at scrambling out of bad situations, yet their low scoring match was very definitely worth watching. As long as the rules system promotes wrestlers engaging, make scoring attempts/create scoring situations its going to be exciting for the guys who want to actually "wrestle" and the fans alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has Stan given up on any sort of discourse here? i've not looked in other threads, but this one seems ripe for his commentary.

 

Unfortunately for us and wrestling, Stan does not seem to like being intelligently debated. We've tried here and tried on Facebook but did not acheive much. If he cannot dominate the discussion and convince you immediately that FILA has already looked at "all the angles", he quickly disappears when questioned with logic and facts. Basically his responses center around enlightening you to the wisdom of FILA and the supreme reasoning behind the rules/changes and how there is always more to it than the 'regular Joe' thinks. If you bring up anything that directly contradicts these "facts", radio silence ensues.

 

See his quotes in the paper. If I were a member of FILA, with as much as we have f'ed up in the past 20 years, you'd think you'd be sincere in not only apologizing, but looking for input from fans on ways to improve the product. Not the case unfortunately. If you didn't know it, they already have all the answers. Just playing a little game of roulette until the ball stops on the right set of 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...