Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jeffr_ideal

Taylor v. Tsargush match

Recommended Posts

Speak English

My apologies …

I guess I got caught up in the moment.

I was simply pointing out to Hero that your analogy was spot-on and that much like Martha in the kitchen, a frog meeting a rattlesnake; or an untimely ‘shot clock”; we all find ourselves in situations that just happen, whether we like it or not.

At these times (when the situation changes) considerable forethought and preparation enables one to perform the action to act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. When you are in that situation you got to make the best of it or else your just screwed and thats life.

 

But that doesn't justify the rules that institutionalizes the ability for referees to hand points to whomever they personally prefer to win the match regardless of what is actually happening.

 

Taylor should have go to moves that he can turn to when hes put on the shot clock that is a lot easier said than done against someone of the caliber of a 2x world champ. If DT could score at will he would have earlier and when you take a bad shot at this level you lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shot clock rule is dumb and very subjective. Everyone will start complaining about it once it costs a guy a match on someone else's home turf.

 

The problem is once you get a guy on the shot clock you can become totally defensive yourself until he gets dinged for the point. I thought tsargush dominated the ties for the first minute. Not so much after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Low scoring matches with tons of actions with scrambles and funk is better than arbitrary points for points' sake. Thats where they went wrong the last few sets of rules... that and wanting short matches but the idea that we need to MAKE points happen force is very detrimimental to wrestling IMO.

 

I believe they actually already did address this with the inclusion of the pushout along with a two pt takedown. If either wrestler can't even get a PUSHOUT to spark some points on the board then something is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of complaining on here is out of control.

 

When it's low scoring, people say it's boring and foreign wrestlers only attack once or twice per match and FILA is terrible for not changing the rules to make it more exciting for the IOC. Then people grumble about the good old days, and wonder how our wrestlers would do under folkstyle rules.

 

Then FILA changes the rules to encourage scoring and constant attacks, and now everyone is pissed that there's too much scoring and they prefer low scores and we should be like soccer with one or two points every 90 minutes. Then they complain about FILA changing things just to please the IOC, and then they grumble about the good old days, and wonder how our wrestlers would do under folkstyle rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't even mind the shot clock, I prefer that to a stalling point. It should just be very clear that one is needed for a wrestler. Every match does not HAVE to have a shot clock and it seems that's where we're headed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the scoring, but the 7 point tech would only make sense if takedowns were still only 1 point, not 2. With 2 point takedowns, the tech should be 10-12 points. Also, I would prefer hand-to-hand turns to still be only 1 point, because it's more difficult to make a guy touch his elbow. Doing ankle laces for hand-to-hand is easier than doing them the way John Smith used to do to get 2 point exposures. Also, with a 7 point tech, a takedown and a few turns from laces ends the match. Again, I love the scoring, but there's no reason for a match to end in under 2 minutes without a pin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the scoring, but the 7 point tech would only make sense if takedowns were still only 1 point, not 2. With 2 point takedowns, the tech should be 10-12 points. Also, I would prefer hand-to-hand turns to still be only 1 point, because it's more difficult to make a guy touch his elbow. Doing ankle laces for hand-to-hand is easier than doing them the way John Smith used to do to get 2 point exposures. Also, with a 7 point tech, a takedown and a few turns from laces ends the match. Again, I love the scoring, but there's no reason for a match to end in under 2 minutes without a pin.

Hand to hand turns are still 1 point. That was a phantom rule change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the scoring, but the 7 point tech would only make sense if takedowns were still only 1 point, not 2. With 2 point takedowns, the tech should be 10-12 points. Also, I would prefer hand-to-hand turns to still be only 1 point, because it's more difficult to make a guy touch his elbow. Doing ankle laces for hand-to-hand is easier than doing them the way John Smith used to do to get 2 point exposures. Also, with a 7 point tech, a takedown and a few turns from laces ends the match. Again, I love the scoring, but there's no reason for a match to end in under 2 minutes without a pin.

Hand to hand turns are still 1 point. That was a phantom rule change.

Ha, somehow I'm not surprised I missed it. Are we still in a so-called "experimental period" in which the rules could change at any time? Or is everything officially set now? And for how long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only changes needed are having OT at worlds and olympics, and initiating a 10 pt tech. IMO anyways.

 

That would make these rules perfect IMO.

 

We do not have to agree to bring the takedown back down to 1 to improve the matches though that would be a big step backwards. We need to demand that if they are going to keep a 1 pt pushout then the takedown must be worth more. That obviously means though that the tech limit must be raised to prevent matches from ending prematurely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the rules aren't really going to make a difference in terms of who wins.

 

The cream rises to the top. And fact is Russia and Iran are better wrestling nations the US in international styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The amount of complaining on here is out of control.

 

When it's low scoring, people say it's boring and foreign wrestlers only attack once or twice per match and FILA is terrible for not changing the rules to make it more exciting for the IOC. Then people grumble about the good old days, and wonder how our wrestlers would do under folkstyle rules.

 

Then FILA changes the rules to encourage scoring and constant attacks, and now everyone is pissed that there's too much scoring and they prefer low scores and we should be like soccer with one or two points every 90 minutes. Then they complain about FILA changing things just to please the IOC, and then they grumble about the good old days, and wonder how our wrestlers would do under folkstyle rules.

 

I challenge you to point out even ONE post where someone said they prefer low scores and we should be like soccer. Talk about a ridiculous straw man argument. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I challenge you to point out even ONE post where someone said they prefer low scores and we should be like soccer. Talk about a ridiculous straw man argument. :lol:

How about these?

 

Low scoring matches with tons of actions with scrambles and funk is better than arbitrary points for points' sake. Thats where they went wrong the last few sets of rules... that and wanting short matches but the idea that we need to MAKE points happen force is very detrimimental to wrestling IMO.

This idea that low scoring is a problem is ridiculous. The most popular sport in the world, soccer, is very low scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I say I prefer low scores or that we should be like soccer? No where.

 

I said low scoring matches with tons of action are MUCH preferable to high scoring matches with forced point scoring situations.

 

I didn't know anyone liked artificial points. Thats why they changed those stupid ball grab type rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a feeling the rules aren't really going to make a difference in terms of who wins.

 

The cream rises to the top. And fact is Russia and Iran are better wrestling nations the US in international styles.

I agree completely. If USA loses a match to Russia because there's no overtime, or we win with two 3-point turns despite being behind in score, etc -- that doesn't make those particular rules any less bad. It's not about making rules that even the competition, in fact the new rules (thank God) leave less up to chance without the clinch and aggregate scoring. I'm thrilled about the new rules, they are definitely better than before, but when there are a few minor changes that a vast majority agrees do not make sense, I don't understand why some here think we should just shut up about it. Do we think Russian or Iranian coaches/athletes would be opposed to overtime, let alone anyone with a brain? The reason they don't have overtime has nothing to do with the better wrestler winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did I say I prefer low scores or that we should be like soccer? No where.

 

I said low scoring matches with tons of action are MUCH preferable to high scoring matches with forced point scoring situations.

 

I didn't know anyone liked artificial points. Thats why they changed those stupid ball grab type rules.

 

So, the shot clock in the NBA has made the scoring bad or forced? What's wrong with forcing someone to score?

 

Also, you can still have low scoring matches with lot's of funk and action. The NBA implemented a shot clock because no one wants to watch stalling. Manufactured or not people like to see an attempt to score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did I say I prefer low scores or that we should be like soccer? No where.

 

I said low scoring matches with tons of action are MUCH preferable to high scoring matches with forced point scoring situations.

 

I didn't know anyone liked artificial points. Thats why they changed those stupid ball grab type rules.

 

So, the shot clock in the NBA has made the scoring bad or forced? What's wrong with forcing someone to score?

 

Also, you can still have low scoring matches with lot's of funk and action. The NBA implemented a shot clock because no one wants to watch stalling. Manufactured or not people like to see an attempt to score.

Yes, the NBA sucks. However, even they don't put unearned points on the board. They have an arbitrary 24 second clock in which to make an attempt, but even failing to make an attempt won't result in giving the opponent a point. Forcing one to score is forcing the other to concede, through no actual wrestling action.

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...