Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vhsalum

GOT TAMMIT FILA!

Recommended Posts

So yet AGAIN FILA gets in its own way, and refuses to let the sport be simple.

 

A rules 'clarification' intended to arbitrarily REWARD THE OFFENSIVE WRESTLER???

 

I really don't understand what inept governing body could continually change the RULES and format of the sport and get away with it???!!! Oh, that's right. FILA. The same dinosaurs who continue to believe the wrestling community owes them something for even existing.

 

This 'clarification' is a RULE CHANGE. Suddenly a counter-offensive takedown is NOT A TAKEDOWN? It's 'seen' as a reversal?

 

I really wish I knew the answer to this, but it is these things that make me want to keep myself and my club away from FS/GR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish Stan D could come on here and address these issues. Constant rule changes, weight class reductions, 2 bronze medals with odd and extended breaks...etc...

I would like to know if what the logistic and facility restrictions are for FILA events. I would rather see 5, 6..10 mats running for the prelims and consi instead of 2 bronze with the stupid repcharge follow the winner system. NCAA's run very well with many mats, fans love it.

I can't understand how Stan, a former world class competitor along with his peers can allow this BS to keep happening. Think of this as a monumental accomplishment. To screw up one of the oldest sports known to man...at least they can put that feather in their cap. I was hoping the new FILA pres would take charge and lead. Maybe he needs time ?

How can these FILA guys even look Gable, Smith and Bruce in the eyes as well as the prominent accomplished wrestlers throughout the world who are still involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing official, just some things i have read along the way on some of these issues. the venue is an ioc restriction, along with the number of competitors and number of bouts to fit into a program schedule. they try to keep it as close as possible to the olympic program to help its standing in the games (that worked really well). the double bronze is the dumbest thing in my opinion. it artificially bumps up the medal diversity, especially when you consider the follow the leader repechage. i heard this was implemented to create this diversity in order to spread monetary awards into the wrestling federations from the olympic committees. i would rather see the competitors cut, weight classes added, and double bronze be eliminated to free up the medals needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem is that Stan D. is the lone voice in the wilderness. Maybe we need Dan Gable to be appointed to a seat on FILA. I am sure he wouldn't put up with this nonsense. However the reality is that Gable is probably committed to various things already so that wouldn't work, but I do think that maybe we do need additional American voices up there to ensure some common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows what everyone's opinion is on the fila board. i think some of the contention people on the board have with stan is that he seems to defend the rules and decisions the board majority agrees are egregious. he may not agree with them, but he defends them. he may also be leading the charge for some of them behind closed doors, no one really knows.

 

kind of reminds me of hs officials. even when their peers are awful a lot of the guys are afraid to tell them to their face they blew the call. nothing gets improved bc they are all too busy patting each other on the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hammerlock3
What are u talking about

 

did you follow junior worlds?

 

I watched a bunch of matches. why don't u explain instead of answering a question with a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the counters/go behinds that were scored 1pt instead of a 2 point td is what he was complaining about. the gilman counter was originally scored 2 and corrected to 1. was a gray area as he attacked the legs after getting an angle on a missed attack by the bulgarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
......

How can these FILA guys even look Gable, Smith and Bruce in the eyes as well as the prominent accomplished wrestlers throughout the world who are still involved.

 

Indeed.

 

 

When people who've been around wrestling their whole lives can't tell what's happening, how can we expect to attract new fans... or even keep the ones we have?">>

 

That's what Olympic gold medalist Ben Peterson had to say regarding watching an Olympic FS match in 2004, in a great recent WIN article about how FILA contributed to FS wrestling's demise with their idiotic rule changes. The WTT's gave me hope for FS's future, but then they allowed OT there, and FILA/IOC is not yet on board with that.

 

Seems like there is still work to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the counters/go behinds that were scored 1pt instead of a 2 point td is what he was complaining about. the gilman counter was originally scored 2 and corrected to 1. was a gray area as he attacked the legs after getting an angle on a missed attack by the bulgarian.

 

Yes, this is what I am "complaining" about. I put that in quotations, because the fact is, this is a FUNDAMENTAL change in our sport. Suddenly, a takedown is no longer a takedown.

 

Here is how it would sound:

1-point shall be awarded to the wrestler, who, in the standing position, counters his opponents offensive attempt, and obtains control.

 

So now I can dive in on a shot, allow my opponent to spin behind me, and its 1 point? Again, the nuances necessary to compete, coach, referee and watch this sport is what has killed it in the past. And, the reason, i'm so anti-FILA right - THE REASON ITS GOING TO DIE AGAIN!

 

Keep it simple, or we will NEVER draw the casual fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the counters/go behinds that were scored 1pt instead of a 2 point td is what he was complaining about. the gilman counter was originally scored 2 and corrected to 1. was a gray area as he attacked the legs after getting an angle on a missed attack by the bulgarian.

 

Yes, this is what I am "complaining" about. I put that in quotations, because the fact is, this is a FUNDAMENTAL change in our sport. Suddenly, a takedown is no longer a takedown.

 

Here is how it would sound:

1-point shall be awarded to the wrestler, who, in the standing position, counters his opponents offensive attempt, and obtains control.

 

So now I can dive in on a shot, allow my opponent to spin behind me, and its 1 point? Again, the nuances necessary to compete, coach, referee and watch this sport is what has killed it in the past. And, the reason, i'm so anti-FILA right - THE REASON ITS GOING TO DIE AGAIN!

 

Keep it simple, or we will NEVER draw the casual fan.

 

agree 100%. i was thinking about it today rewatching the gilman match: if you feel yourself getting snapped, just take a shot rather than try to hit and come back up. you have a pretty good chance of only giving up one point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing this post, I took a closer look at the new rules to see what they say. I don't know about you guys, but I do not understand the scoring rules at all. For instance, how to score 1 point is on page 29:

 

1 point

- To the wrestler who applies a correct hold while standing on the mat or in the "par terre" position but who does not place his opponent in danger. Ummm... so you can score without actually scoring?

- To the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms, his back facing the mat.Huh? Someone please explain.

- To the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold, but who finally succeeds in completing the hold. Not sure about this one either?

- To the attacking wrestler whose opponent flees the hold, the mat, refuses to start, commits illegal actions or acts of brutality. This one's pretty clear.

- To the wrestler who holds his opponent in a position of danger for five seconds or longer. Is this like folkstyle, when you get 3 near-fall points?

- To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing position).This must be the push-out rule.

- All the stops of bout by injury without bleeding or any visible injury are penalised by 1 point to the opponent. Got it.

- To the wrestler whose opponent requested a challenge if initial decision is confirmed. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After seeing this post, I took a closer look at the new rules to see what they say. I don't know about you guys, but I do not understand the scoring rules at all. For instance, how to score 1 point is on page 29:

 

1 point

- To the wrestler who applies a correct hold while standing on the mat or in the "par terre" position but who does not place his opponent in danger. Ummm... so you can score without actually scoring?

- To the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms, his back facing the mat.Huh? Someone please explain.

- To the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold, but who finally succeeds in completing the hold. Not sure about this one either?

- To the attacking wrestler whose opponent flees the hold, the mat, refuses to start, commits illegal actions or acts of brutality. This one's pretty clear.

- To the wrestler who holds his opponent in a position of danger for five seconds or longer. Is this like folkstyle, when you get 3 near-fall points?

- To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing position).This must be the push-out rule.

- All the stops of bout by injury without bleeding or any visible injury are penalised by 1 point to the opponent. Got it.

- To the wrestler whose opponent requested a challenge if initial decision is confirmed. Got it.

 

All of those rules have been in place prior...

 

The "correct hold" is much more common in greco. Basically, it means you force your opponent into a "rotation," however is back never exposes.

 

"to the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms..." - Imagine putting your opponent on his butt, his hands on the mat. (see Saitiev vs. Murtazaliev 2008 Russian Nationals for an example of this)

 

"to the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold..." - Akin to locking hands in Folkstyle. You'll get a +1.

 

While these nuances have been placed in the past, they need to be gone. And I'm still waiting on FILA (which they will never do) to explain why they are CHANGING THE RULES OF THE SPORT. For years, I've been standing behind FILA with the "format" change, because that's mostly what the rules did. But this is not that case. Once again, you are making the "judgement" of a referee, a too-valued part of the sport.

 

Now referees are being asked to consider whether a takedown is an offensive or defensive maneuver????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So wrestler A isn't very fast but he has a wicked front headlock/go behind combo and his strategy is to jockey for position and wait either for a poor shot or the head to present itself as a target and he scores off this tactic, why should he be penalized? fila sucks more every day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any historians tell us what the longest period of time was without significant rule changes?

I have written many times that I wish we would just go back to the same rules as the late 70's to early 80's with the addition of a push out and takedown worth 2 if push out is included. I was told that those rules were not favored because there was too much subjectivity in scoring and passivity by officials. They have since changed the rules with absolutely terrible results which include as much subjectivity as any in any era.

I really wish Stan would come on and give some real answers. Answers without fear of being politically correct and potentially writing something that his FILA peers would not approve of. I would like to know if Stan is aware of what we think of the current rules and what we want to see. Who is against the rules that fans and wrestlers want or do they have the attitude that the fans just don't know what we are talking about and they (FILA) will decide what is best?

The Top level US coaches have commented about the rules while also being somewhat reserved so they are not somehow black balled. What version of the rules would the Russians, Iranians and the '...Stan countries like to see?

I want to have faith in our USA guy Stan D. so it would be nice if he could explain the politics involved within FILA and how FILA has to make concessions to the IOC with rules, weight classes, limited repcharge, 2 bronze, short matches, short sessions, only 4 mats etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want someone like Dan Gable as our fila rep. Not because of some old idol worship, but because he has fire in his belly. Gable is the kind of person that would represent the best interests of wrestling and not be politically correct about it. Whether true or not, stan d comes across as a passive bystander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vhsalum wrote:"

Yes, this is what I am "complaining" about. I put that in quotations, because the fact is, this is a FUNDAMENTAL change in our sport. Suddenly, a takedown is no longer a takedown."

 

Coach _J wrote:

"Whether defensive or offensive (however you choose to define those terms), a takedown should be 2 points. The dumb is really starting to hurt at FILA...."

 

A takedown--or what the world defines as a takedown--is worth 2 pts. The vast majority of the wrestlers, coaches, referees and fans in the world define a takedown as just that--taking someone from his/her feet to the mat--single-leg, dbl leg, foot sweep, front headlock from standing to the mat, fireman's carry, headlock, arm-throw etc. Think keep it simple!

Most in the world would be confused if someone was awarded a TD, for what to them is clearly not a TD, rather a "pass-behind." Of course, this is not generally the way USA fans accustomed to folkstyle have grown to misuse the term or interpret what is a TD. Yet for the largest majority of the world, it's been this way forever or at least since I started wrestling intern'lly some 40+ yrs ago. Many American fans, burdened w/ this pre-conceived notion of a TD, have never quite discerned the difference--perhaps because it didn't matter, both were scored 1 pt. until now.

The new rules now demand an interpretation [the referee's job]. Why? because a TD is now 2 pts. and what folkstyle defines as a 'reversal', but the world may call in some circumstances a 'pass-behind' is still 1 pt.

 

Perhaps a few examples will help:

1. Let's start w/ a standing headlock. Wrestle A throws his opponent directly to the mat exposing his opponent's shoulders; wrestler B immediately slips out and "passes-behind". International Scoring: 3 pts for a TD w/ exposure is awarded to wrestler A, 1 pt wrestler B for a 'pass-behind' or 'reversal', your choice; Folkstyle in contrast: Wrestler A is awarded 0 pts for his efforts to take his opponent from his feet down to the mat; wrestler B is mysteriously anointed a 2 pt TD--even though wrestler B never took wrestler A down, only wiggled his head free :?: Unintended consequence: In the USA the fans are denied what many associate as fundamental to wrestling--a headlock. How often do you see a collegiate wrestler throw a headlock? Explain the folkstyle scoring to a novice intern'l-wrestling fan and you probably will get this response: "That seems stupid, why would anyone ever risk throwing a headlock in American folkstyle?" Answer: "They don't."

2. Now a flip side example: Wrestler A, the underneath wrestler, executes what the USA dubs a 'switch'. During the execution, wrestler B stands-up. Now both are standing and wrestler A, hands-locked, is now behind wrestler B. Folkstyle scoring--wrestler A, a reversal; international scoring, zero. Yet should wrestler A take his opponent to the mat, guess what, now in intern'l wrestling it's a TD, worth 2 pts. Likewise, if wrestler B executes a standing cross-arm roll taking his opponent to the mat, he too would be rewarded 2 pts for a TD or 3 if wrestler A exposed his back in the process [A move Ben Peterson effectively adapted from folkstyle that gave Stakhov USSR fits in Munich].

 

Remember the preeminent goal remains: to determine the "better wrestler." This should be accomplished not be assumptions or anointing points; rather by executing viable wrestling techniques verifiable by the referees, coaches, wrestlers and viewing audience.

We're talking about judgement of value here. The benefit-of-doubt should always go to the wrestler who takes risk. The rules should differentiate between slipping one's head out after being thrown to one's back or pushing one's opponent out-of-bounds versus a well-executed TD; otherwise you create distorted incentives.

All sports require judgement. The rules are supposed to remove the value of chance. A well-executed takedown has been judged to be more valuable than a 'pass-behind' by most. As a competitor, I understand it completely. It's the soul of intern'l wrestling--it's what makes it such a great sport.

oldrules wrote:

"So wrestler A isn't very fast but he has a wicked front headlock/go behind combo and his strategy is to jockey for position and wait either for a poor shot or the head to present itself as a target and he scores off this tactic, why should he be penalized?"

 

This is a perfect example: Any wrestler whose primary tactic is "jockey for position"-- euphemism for stalling in the minds of the prepared--should be penalized; assuming the referees are keen enough to recognize the ill-intention. These tactics are the very bane to the sport and needs to be banished if wrestling is to survive as a dynamic modern Olympic sport.

 

On the other hand, this is not to suggest the front headlock is not a viable technique that can lead to a TD. If a determined wrestler gains control of his/her opponent by securing a front-headlock, takes him/her to the mat in the process of gaining control, he/she has earned a TD-2 pts. a.k.a. Dave Schultz. I trust the difference is clear.

 

 

jstock wrote:

"can't understand how Stan, a former world class competitor along with his peers can allow this BS to keep happening. Think of this as a monumental accomplishment. To screw up one of the oldest sports known to man...at least they can put that feather in their cap. I was hoping the new FILA pres would take charge and lead. Maybe he needs time ?"

 

Interpretation of the rules is a function for the referees not the rules makers. The worldwide referees interpret and implement the rules. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant [in this case I agree, a takedown is significantly more difficult and risky to execute than a 'pass-behind,' 'reversal' or a 'push-out' and should be rewarded accordingly].

Worldwide wrestling has experienced an authoritarian rule maker who had no qualms about dictating the interpretation as well. It didn't work and was at the root of wrestling's problems. I'm confident the new FILA President won't repeat the same mistake. Think law makers not enforcers! When there's a problem, a wrestler always maintains the right to challenge and let the "Jury of Appeal" be the final arbiters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan:

 

I'm glad you're addressing this, because I'm confused about what's happened in this case. Below is an excerpt of the rules that were last published in June. The word "takedown" does not appear, and what Americans would call "takedowns" and "reversals" are both worth 2 points (the bottom two lines below). If pass-behinds are now worth 1 instead of 2, then this is a change to the rules, not a matter of interpretation.

 

So, my question is, what was the process for how this rules change came about? Who wanted it, and who made the decision to "interpret" the rules in this new way?

 

***

 

http://www.fila-official.com/images/FIL ... _final.pdf

"1 point

- To the wrestler who applies a correct hold while standing on the mat or in the "par terre" position but who does not place his opponent in danger.

- To the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms, his back facing the mat.

- To the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold, but who finally succeeds in completing the hold.

- To the attacking wrestler whose opponent flees the hold, the mat, refuses to start, commits illegal actions or acts of brutality.

- To the wrestler who holds his opponent in a position of danger for five seconds or longer.

- To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing

position).

- All the stops of bout by injury without bleeding or any visible injury are penalised by 1 point to

the opponent.

- To the wrestler whose opponent requested a challenge if initial decision is confirmed.

 

2 points

- To the wrestler who brings his opponent to the ground by passing behind him, and while in this position holding him down with control (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or the head).

- To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him.

. . .

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah um, I am going to have to call bs. A good counter wrestler is not ill prepared, they are just taking advantage of a different skill set. So a good whizzer countering a single only gets one point. That is about as subjective and phucked up as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan:

 

I'm glad you're addressing this, because I'm confused about what's happened in this case. Below is an excerpt of the rules that were last published in June. The word "takedown" does not appear, and what Americans would call "takedowns" and "reversals" are both worth 2 points (the bottom two lines below). If pass-behinds are now worth 1 instead of 2, then this is a change to the rules, not a matter of interpretation.

 

So, my question is, what was the process for how this rules change came about? Who wanted it, and who made the decision to "interpret" the rules in this new way?

 

***

 

http://www.fila-official.com/images/FIL ... _final.pdf

"1 point

- To the wrestler who applies a correct hold while standing on the mat or in the "par terre" position but who does not place his opponent in danger.

- To the wrestler who blocks his opponent on one or two outstretched arms, his back facing the mat.

- To the wrestler who is prevented from completing a hold because his opponent is maintaining an irregular hold, but who finally succeeds in completing the hold.

- To the attacking wrestler whose opponent flees the hold, the mat, refuses to start, commits illegal actions or acts of brutality.

- To the wrestler who holds his opponent in a position of danger for five seconds or longer.

- To the wrestler whose opponent goes in the protection zone with one entire foot (in standing

position).

- All the stops of bout by injury without bleeding or any visible injury are penalised by 1 point to

the opponent.

- To the wrestler whose opponent requested a challenge if initial decision is confirmed.

 

2 points

- To the wrestler who brings his opponent to the ground by passing behind him, and while in this position holding him down with control (three points of contact: two arms and one knee or two knees and one arm or the head).- To the wrestler who overcomes, holds and controls his opponent by passing behind him.

. . .

"

 

 

Just wow. It must be nice up on that pedestal Stan...

 

I just wish you'd spend less time bullsh!ting and more time listening to ONLY thing that can save a dying sport - FANS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stan: Was the Gilman match called correctly? Gilman got an angle off of the original shot then went to a high crotch of his own before the opponent bellied down and Gilman finished behind. Most American's thought it was a bad call. Was it a bad call or is it the rule we don't agree with? It is a very gray area because he didn't pass behind, he went to a counter high crotch.....

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...