Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tofurky

Dredging up an old debate

Recommended Posts

http://www.flowrestling.org/speaker/150 ... or-Hate-it - the passion on both sides is good, even if the argument is a tired one.

 

How about counting riding time ONLY if near fall points have been awarded?

 

How about a clock, similar to Freestyle, where you have 20 or 30 seconds to turn your opponent once a takedown has been awarded before you're both put back on your feet?

 

Similarly, if a guy rides his opponent (from either a takedown or a start on the mat) with no turn and action is moved back to the feet, the first time no call is made. The second time is a warning for the top man. The third time is a second warning and a stalling point, so on and so forth. The top man would also have the option of cutting his opponent loose before 30 seconds so as to avoid the stalling call. This places more onus on the top man to score from that position.

 

I know Andy Vogel did an analysis of scoring from the feet during the quarterfinals of last season's DIs, but how about a scoring analysis for as much of the tournament as possible from the mat? I suspect that a lot of riding time is built up and awarded, but with very few turns being involved. Does anyone know if the NCAA or NWCA does any sort of analysis like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why just warn the top guy? The bottom guy has an obligation to get out.

I take the guy down 3x during the match and accumulate 1:30 riding time. but get called for stalling 3 times because the guy couldn't get off the bottom. Turning a good wrestler is harder than getting off the bottom.

How about we worry about putting more on the officials to determine stalling and the outcome of a match and spend more time teaching kids how to work off the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

riding time is crazy if they aren't working to score hit them with stalling riding time is an excuse not to hit guys for stalling but they aren't working to score

 

same goes for top or bottom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like I am in the minority on college riding and riding time. I think most of the opponents do not appreciate what accumulating riding time does to the BOTTOM man. It is VERY hard to hold someone down at that level. What looks like stalling on the top man, other than the drop to a leg/ankle tactic(I HATE THAT), usually drains major energy from the bottom guy and often breaks them mentally. For how hard it is to hold someone down at that level it is EXPONENTIALLY harder to turn someone. The top man needs that much time to break them and may inevitably get a turn at the end when and often if their opponent breaks. There are things like parallel riding that need to be called but putting a time limit on riding takes away from the CONTROL aspect that makes Folkstyle unique. Watching people dance around on their feet the Entire match doesn't excite me and we already have Freestyle and Greco for that. I think Folkstyle is the most complete style there is and if we can simply define stalling with Ironclad Rules(Easier said than done) nothing fundamental to the sport needs to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't track RT in the quarterfinals when I wrote my article, but here are the instances of back points from those 40 matches. I would say this list below includes 15 instances of a top guy turning a wrestler on the bottom. 6 of those are in the Stieber match alone.

 

125 Kraisser catches Delgado in a cradle as part of defending a shot

133 Stieber hits his claw tilt 5 times and hits a high half once (vs. Brewer)

133 Schopp Schopp does two cross wrist rolls and a side headlock suck back into legs (vs. Dardanes)

141 Durso hits a tight waist tilt on Stieber

141 Port stops Henderson mid roll for a two count

141 Maple hits a tight waist tilt on Ballweg

149 Oliver does a cross wrist roll on Sueflohn

157 Welch scrambles into a cradle on Alton

165 Dake scores a crossface cradle and a claw roll through (vs. Sulzer)

165 Yohn hits a reinforced bar tilt on Yates

165 Taylor defends a single into a cradle (vs. Polz)

174 Brown defends a standup with seatbelt/far knee pick to Weatherman's back

197 Kilgore does a 2-on-1 duck to a far side dump to Burak's back

197 Meeks hits a roll through half and a suck back half, the last for a fall (vs. Hernandez)

197 Wilps catches a desperation roll inside ten seconds from a trailing Rosholt

197 Wright screw lock throw to a fall (vs. Schiller)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't track RT in the quarterfinals when I wrote my article, but here are the instances of back points from those 40 matches. I would say this list below includes 15 instances of a top guy turning a wrestler on the bottom. 6 of those are in the Stieber match alone.

 

125 Kraisser catches Delgado in a cradle as part of defending a shot

133 Stieber hits his claw tilt 5 times and hits a high half once (vs. Brewer)

133 Schopp Schopp does two cross wrist rolls and a side headlock suck back into legs (vs. Dardanes)

141 Durso hits a tight waist tilt on Stieber

141 Port stops Henderson mid roll for a two count

141 Maple hits a tight waist tilt on Ballweg

149 Oliver does a cross wrist roll on Sueflohn

157 Welch scrambles into a cradle on Alton

165 Dake scores a crossface cradle and a claw roll through (vs. Sulzer)

165 Yohn hits a reinforced bar tilt on Yates

165 Taylor defends a single into a cradle (vs. Polz)

174 Brown defends a standup with seatbelt/far knee pick to Weatherman's back

197 Kilgore does a 2-on-1 duck to a far side dump to Burak's back

197 Meeks hits a roll through half and a suck back half, the last for a fall (vs. Hernandez)

197 Wilps catches a desperation roll inside ten seconds from a trailing Rosholt

197 Wright screw lock throw to a fall (vs. Schiller)

 

Andy,

 

Thanks for this further breakdown.

 

In 16 out of 40 matches (or 40% of the time) were back points scored. Of those 16, five instances came from feet to back or scrambles from neutral positions. That said, in only slightly more than one quarter of the matches (27.5% by the numbers), in this specific tournament, in this specific year, did guys actually work from top to turn their opponents to their backs. Two more times were guys caught in roll throughs, lowering the numbers of intentional scoring maneuvers by the top man down to 22.5% of matches that saw this take place.

 

That said, and Andy, I am not asking that you do this, but I'd be interested to know about how long on average it took for each one of these turns to take place. Are they taking 1:33 to set up on average? Are the turns coming at an average of 17 seconds after a breakdown from top or takedown?

 

Personally, I'd love to see a further analysis of this done (by the NCWA and NCAA) for tournaments such as National Duals, Scuffle, Midlands, Reno and each of the conference tournaments to have a more complete picture of how many near falls are scored in relation to riding time points being awarded, when those near falls are taking place, on average, from what positions (during a scramble from the feet, a desperation roll through or did the top man set it up and turn his opponent) and if it ended up being the difference in a lot of matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why just warn the top guy? The bottom guy has an obligation to get out.

I take the guy down 3x during the match and accumulate 1:30 riding time. but get called for stalling 3 times because the guy couldn't get off the bottom. Turning a good wrestler is harder than getting off the bottom.

How about we worry about putting more on the officials to determine stalling and the outcome of a match and spend more time teaching kids how to work off the bottom.

 

My argument is assuming that the bottom man is working too. Maybe the approach I put out there for discussion applies to both guys? Let's keep discussing this.

 

You would be called for stalling twice. The first is a "free pass", if you will.

 

Turning a good wrestler is incredibly difficult, I absolutely agree. But if the object of you being on top is to work for a fall and this guy never goes into the danger position, did you do your job on top AND should you be rewarded with points for not doing what the rules are demanding of you?

 

Refs get this one wrong all the time. Why not give them some concrete guidelines with which to work, thus taking this sort of subjectivity out of their hands? Your job as the top wrestler is to work for a fall, not throw a leg and feign a cross body ride to a split just so you can eat up some time on the clock and earn a point for NOT doing your job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one point i didn't bring up was...

 

i don't like how when starting from top and bottom, they get in a scramble for :45 and it ends in a stalemate.

 

all that RT goes to the top man despite him not really being 'in control' or exhibiting even anything close to control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, A guy would think there is something wrong? I personally like riding time and I like it how it is. If a guy is good at running out a clock, good for him, it works in other sports. Get out, don't choose down, or don't get taken down if you do not want to be ridden out. I personal think you are pretty darn tough if you can ride a guy for two minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only count riding time when take down criteria are currently met.

 

So if a guy is on top and drops to a leg, no riding time since hanging on the ankle or picking up a single does not equal a takedown. But if a guy is on top and riding, reward him for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one point i didn't bring up was...

 

i don't like how when starting from top and bottom, they get in a scramble for :45 and it ends in a stalemate.

 

all that RT goes to the top man despite him not really being 'in control' or exhibiting even anything close to control.

 

I agree with this.

 

There was one match in particular that made me really question riding time. Two athletes that were nearly identical talent wise (at that point in each of their careers). One was a traditional style wrestler and one was funky. They get in a scramble that lasts for maybe 30 seconds and the traditional wrestler wins the position. In the second or third period they get in basically the same scramble where the funky wrestler was on top, and he wins the position and stays on top. He wins the match by one point (riding point) with something like 1:02 in total riding time. There was no difference in the wrestlers and nothing more was done, in my opinion, to warrant the win.

 

I know all rules will have moments where we think they are unfair and I don't really care about making things fair but the riding time just seems so... for lack of a better term: foreign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riding time puts pressure on the bottom wrestler to work, and is a good thing (parallel riding, hanging on feet etc. excluded) that can create excitement in tight matches. I find mat wrestling less boring, and less time consuming, than NFL teams repeatedly kneeing a ball to kill the last few minutes of clock.

 

Top wrestlers repeatedly dropping down to legs ( a la McD vs Mega at Iowa) concerns me more. Maybe we can make the rules for this scenario more explicit like the rules for the bottom wrestler standing up when the top wrestler has legs in? First time you drop down to a single leg and don't come up = stalling. Second time = warning. Simply take the judgement call out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just got word (from the horses mouth) a kid I coached got the call to become a college ref.

Got the call because he is a very good ref AND he calls stalling.

His attitude is as a ref is, there is a rulebook....follow it. As he told me.... you are going to get boo'd by one side or the other.... you want to get boo'd for calling stalling on someone who is stalling...

or do you want to get boo'd by the side who is being aggressive and attacking and NOT calling stalling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just got word (from the horses mouth) a kid I coached got the call to become a college ref.

Got the call because he is a very good ref AND he calls stalling.

His attitude is as a ref is, there is a rulebook....follow it. As he told me.... you are going to get boo'd by one side or the other.... you want to get boo'd for calling stalling on someone who is stalling...

or do you want to get boo'd by the side who is being aggressive and attacking and NOT calling stalling?

Good news AK. Hope we get more like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez lets just complicate the hell out of folkstyle. I say if you can take a guy down and ride the hell out him, you deserve to win. If you cannot get out you deserve to lose. That's part of wrestling. If you cannot defend yourself on your feet and cannot get out from the bottom, you deserve to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Geez lets just complicate the hell out of folkstyle. I say if you can take a guy down and ride the hell out him, you deserve to win. If you cannot get out you deserve to lose. That's part of wrestling. If you cannot defend yourself on your feet and cannot get out from the bottom, you deserve to lose.

 

I don't know that anything in this thread complicates wrestling anything any further. Right now you can earn another match point from the offensive position on the mat (top) for never even remotely moving your opponent into near fall. "Didn't put your guy's shoulders in danger, but hung on his hips and ankles for more than minute? Here's a point!"

 

- In the suggested form, stalling is no longer a subjective call by referees.

--- In short, refs should be there for each wrestler's safety, to award points and pins and raise the hand of the winner. Why give them any sort of subjective power that could influence the outcome of the match?

--- Refs would now be given a very defined set of rules from which to apply the stalling call during the match.

--- I don't know that any wrestling fan would be upset about this.

 

- You don't turn your opponent in 30 seconds, both guys go back to your feet.

--- The defensive (bottom) man doesn't earn a point for NOT being put on his back; he gains nothing for not escaping or reversing his down position in that time.

--- First neutral reset is a "freebie"; second is a warning; third is a point for the opponent, so on and so forth.

--- I could be wrong, but I would think it would be in the best interest of the defensive (bottom) wrestler to work to earn an escape or reversal instead of simply laying there for 30 seconds and being absolutely punished for nothing to gain.

 

- You don't earn near fall points at all during the match, no riding time point is awarded.

--- This doesn't mean you cannot ride your opponent, nor am I suggesting that it should be wiped out, just that near fall points need to be earned in order to earn riding time.

--- I also suggested that you may choose to cut your opponent before those 30 seconds to stop a "turn clock", for lack of a better term, avoid the stalling call and continue wrestling.

 

To your point about not being able "defend yourself on your feet and cannot get out from the bottom, you deserve to lose", how would what I proposed change any of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just got word (from the horses mouth) a kid I coached got the call to become a college ref.

Got the call because he is a very good ref AND he calls stalling.

His attitude is as a ref is, there is a rulebook....follow it. As he told me.... you are going to get boo'd by one side or the other.... you want to get boo'd for calling stalling on someone who is stalling...

or do you want to get boo'd by the side who is being aggressive and attacking and NOT calling stalling?

 

Good for him. I hope he enjoys officiating college. Bob Bubb, the ex rules editor always used to say "Call the rules book" when he started meeting.

 

Hopefully the folks that hire him share his philosophy so he gets invited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I did this right, but the youtube video below pretty much explains what was wrong with our system of letting the officials decide who wins the most important matches. I once had a very well respected mat official explain the way it works. What you do is hit a few meaningless stalls in insignificant matches, so the stall totals looks reasonable at the end of the night, but in the tight match where it really matters, either give or don't give the call depending on who you are helping out.

 

 

Not saying stalling isn't hurting the sport, but imo we were one step away from just letting the crowd decide who wins close matches. I think most of us would rather see aggressive wrestling, but when you let the mat officials decide matches, they will. The video above, while kind of silly, lets a few of you know what it feels like if you don't have the large influential fan bases on your side. "it all depends on who's bull is being gored:)

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...