Need OT

[GranbyTroll 441]

If you just go to criteria after OT completes, it defeats the purpose. Therefore, I say:

 

 

I disagree. The ultimate rideout in high school is exciting because both wrestlers have opposite goals and one will win. The 2min OT followed by criteria could have a similar feel. Sure, the wrestler winning on criteria may try to run away, rather than go for a score, but 2 min is a long time and freestyle has push outs.

 

In NCAA D1 wrestling, 2min then criteria would be disastrous because one guy would literally run away and not get hit for stalling so that the refs can "let the wrestlers decide." In freestyle, the wrestler with criteria would literally have to stay in the circle and not give up a score for 2 min. Seems pretty exciting for me.

[Matburn155 3]

When you really think about it, It seems strange that the IOC will not allow OT in wrestling due to time constraints, but in other sports they do. They don't seem to worry about time constraints in sports such as tennis, ping pong, volleyball, etc..I would argue that these sports are no more popular than wrestling at the Olympics. A tennis match length can vary in a measurement by hours, but they won't give us a few minutes for the few wrestling matches that go to overtime? Baffles me...

[GranbyTroll 441]

Also, if we can't add more weight classes because of medal restrictions, why don't we let the two Bronze winners wrestler for "true third?" freeing up 18 medals? 18 medals is 6 additional weight classes making it 8 per "style." The things that the IOC and FILA tell us seem pretty nonsensical most of the time. .

[ccrider55 17]

If you just go to criteria after OT completes, it defeats the purpose.

 

The benefits of having the option for a tie score to be broken instantaneously with action far outweighs the negativity that could be viewed by (well, basically everyone), if someone screws the criteria on a World final. "Well, that's it folks, live on NBC, this match ends in a tie, but that guy wins because he had a bigger move. We now return to sold out soccer, where ties are decided by something in a tournament format."

 

penalties in soccer = leg clinch in freestyle

 

follow the progression for over 20 years. we had overtime. then we had to score at least 3 then overtime. then we had score at least three and then the over under clinch. then we had the leg clinch. where else can we go? back to overtime followed by clinches and other goofiness.

 

you have 6 minutes to win and thats it.

With soccer PK's both teams get to shoot, not a ball grab deciding one team does.

 

Just OT until a score...

[lil_red 1]

The amount of action we saw this past weekend in the 6 min matches was great. Better than ever! There is always a winner and a loser and the drama of each match seemed to be magnified with criteria in place. Overtime has been engraved in our heads for years and years. I Thought it was refreshing to see such an offensive change in wrestling.

 

Even watching high school and college these days, there is too many 1-0, 2-1, overtime matches. Wrestling is great when athletes need to be offensive to win. In freestyle wrestling, if you are not offensive, you are not going to win.

[Jaroslav Hasek 1,902]

The amount of action we saw this past weekend in the 6 min matches was great. Better than ever! There is always a winner and a loser and the drama of each match seemed to be magnified with criteria in place. Overtime has been engraved in our heads for years and years. I Thought it was refreshing to see such an offensive change in wrestling.

 

Even watching high school and college these days, there is too many 1-0, 2-1, overtime matches. Wrestling is great when athletes need to be offensive to win. In freestyle wrestling, if you are not offensive, you are not going to win.

 

yeah, i have the seem feelings. i wouldn't mind OT but i dont see what the fuss is all about. there were 2 high profile high scoring matches where simpler criteria would have helped. but from a spectator point of view the action was great.

 

honestly just flipping a coin after a match would be exciting. dont want to rely on chance? win the match in regular time. i didnt mind the ball grab so much as i hated 1) all the stoppage time and waiting and walking around and 2) the impossible job of getting the wrestlers set in a clinch position.

 

but now the ball grab is a rallying cry so please forget i every mentioned it.

[2td3nf 547]

I keep tweaking my opinion the more posts I read on this topic. I'm actually ok with a lot of the OT ideas in this thread.

 

So far I think I want:

 

1. Definite OT if score is tied after regulation. 1 minute or 2 minutes is fine (although I prefer 2 minutes - just giving FILA the option of 1 minute in case they're concerned of time restraint issues). IMO, any OT is better than no OT.

 

2. If we have to go criteria (OT or not), pretty sure I like the first score instead of the last score. Reward the aggressor, not the procrastinator who is in a desperate situation to score anyway. (Perhaps someone can persuade me and change my opinion on this criteria.)

 

3. Sudden victory in OT.

 

4. Again, just my opinion, but I think OT in any sport is usually very exciting.

 

5. This is a great thread. Lot of excellent ideas.

[wnywrestling 64]

Another idea: Instead of (or after) sudden victory, you could just alternate with each wrestler on the 30-second shot clock until someone wins. Sorta like a tiebreak in tennis, and similar in concept to the top/bottom OT in college.

[SetonHallPirate 846]

If you just go to criteria after OT completes, it defeats the purpose. Therefore, I say:

 

First OT: 2 minute, sudden victory, full circle

Second OT: unlimited, sudden victory, small circle

I have another idea.

 

First OT: Two minute sudden victory, last thirty with somebody required to be on the shot clock.

[lil_red 1]

What are the actual chances of Fila changing to OT? ZERO

 

Fila will never make the switch. I bet USA is one of the only countries to even bring this argument to the table.

[GranbyTroll 441]

What are the actual chances of Fila changing to OT? ZERO

 

Fila will never make the switch. I bet USA is one of the only countries to even bring this argument to the table.

 

I agree that this is one of those "American" quirks that most of the rest of the world doesn't even have on the radar (like conditioning), however FILA has made some surprising changes recently. Just a year ago, I would have told you that FILA would never change to a 2 point takedown. It's a long shot, but stranger things have happened recently.

 

Also, the 1 min OT then criteria compromise seems like the one that FILA would most likely adopt if they had to chose (no way unlimited OT a la 2013 WTT)

[tirapell 34]

Guys, some numbers to think about.

 

2.3% of matches (9/390) at US Open went to criteria. It was actually less in FILA JR at 1.86% (13/699). Let's say that number doubles to 5% since guys can end in a tie.

 

There are 31 championship bouts in a full 32-man bracket tournament (I believe only 8 wrestle-back matches and 9 if you do only one 3rd place). If 5% go to OT and EVERY match goes the full 2 minutes (highly unlikely), that's:

 

CHAMPIONSHIP BRACKET

8 weight classes

31 bouts/wt

248 total bouts

5% OT matches or 12.4 matches (let's say 13)

26 minutes of additional wrestling time spread across 3 mats (A, B, C)

9 minutes more wrestling TOTAL

 

The 'extra wrestling time' argument just don't make a lot of sense when you look at it objectively. There is really no reason not to go 2 minutes for OT to try to get a wrestler to end with more points. Criteria, like penalty kicks in soccer, should be a last resort, not a mainstream part of the sport.

 

I'd guess if only 5% of matches are going OT, only 1 or 2 matches in an entire World Championships should end in criteria (after OT).

[Jaroslav Hasek 1,902]

Guys, some numbers to think about.

 

2.3% of matches (9/390) at US Open went to criteria. It was actually less in FILA JR at 1.86% (13/699). Let's say that number doubles to 5% since guys can end in a tie.

 

There are 31 championship bouts in a full 32-man bracket tournament (I believe only 8 wrestle-back matches and 9 if you do only one 3rd place). If 5% go to OT and EVERY match goes the full 2 minutes (highly unlikely), that's:

 

CHAMPIONSHIP BRACKET

8 weight classes

31 bouts/wt

248 total bouts

5% OT matches or 12.4 matches (let's say 13)

26 minutes of additional wrestling time spread across 3 mats (A, B, C)

9 minutes more wrestling TOTAL

 

The 'extra wrestling time' argument just don't make a lot of sense when you look at it objectively. There is really no reason not to go 2 minutes for OT to try to get a wrestler to end with more points. Criteria, like penalty kicks in soccer, should be a last resort, not a mainstream part of the sport.

 

I'd guess if only 5% of matches are going OT, only 1 or 2 matches in an entire World Championships should end in criteria (after OT).

 

i agree that the extended match length is not likely to be a practical or logistical problem given the data. but given that A) as the rules are currently structured, tied matches after regulation are exceedingly rare and B) there would still need to be some sort of criteria if a match ended after 2 minutes of OT - why is the current system that much a problem?

 

maybe a better first step would be to just simplify the criteria? if matches ending with simplified criteria are still unsatisfying for fans, then perhaps OT should be more seriously considered.

[GranbyTroll 441]

 

maybe a better first step would be to just simplify the criteria? if matches ending with simplified criteria are still unsatisfying for fans, then perhaps OT should be more seriously considered.

 

Agree. That's a good baby step. Here's my best solution (can't remember which thread I put this in.)

 

Criteria:

1) The only wrestler to have a 4pt action

2) The wrestler who scored last.

 

I think this compromises the "reward big moves" approach with the "simpler is better."

[wnywrestling 64]

I just don't like criteria. Think about it for other sports:

 

Basketball: Whoever scored the most 3-pointers, or whoever scored the last point

Tennis: Whoever scored the most aces, or whoever scored the last point

Football: Whoever scored the most touchdowns, or whoever scored the last point

Hockey: Whoever had the most shots, or whoever scored the last point

Baseball (instead of extra innings): Whoever had the most homeruns, or whoever scored the last point

 

Why don't these popular sports do this? Because it sucks.

[quanon 161]

I'd guess if only 5% of matches are going OT, only 1 or 2 matches in an entire World Championships should end in criteria (after OT).

 

So why not go unlimited overtime? There's already a pushout rule, and a shot clock. There would be no marathon matches -- period.

 

Given that judo already has unlimited overtime, I think FILA wants criteria to make regular time meaningful. If they wanted unlimited overtime, the IOC wouldn't stand in the way.

[lil_red 1]

Speculation:

 

Not many matches end in criteria because wrestlers don't want to decide a match on criteria and are forced to be offensive and score the whole match

 

Add in OT and you will find many who wrestle for OT. There would be many more OT finishes then criteria finishes because wrestler will be less offensive during the actual match.

[2td3nf 547]

Speculation:

 

Not many matches end in criteria because wrestlers don't want to decide a match on criteria and are forced to be offensive and score the whole match

 

Add in OT and you will find many who wrestle for OT. There would be many more OT finishes then criteria finishes because wrestler will be less offensive during the actual match.

 

Point well taken. The current rule does force the wrestler who is behind on criteria to try to score to win before time is expired.

 

But what I think the masses are referring to here, is those oh so many great, close matches that end in a tie. So many times we see wild/intense/fun, evenly-matched bouts that end in a tie.

 

IMO, sudden victory OT would be great for the sport.

[gutfirst 219]

I'd guess if only 5% of matches are going OT, only 1 or 2 matches in an entire World Championships should end in criteria (after OT).

 

So why not go unlimited overtime? There's already a pushout rule, and a shot clock. There would be no marathon matches -- period.

 

Given that judo already has unlimited overtime, I think FILA wants criteria to make regular time meaningful. If they wanted unlimited overtime, the IOC wouldn't stand in the way.

 

why not go to overtime if there is a push out or shot clock?

 

here are 2 reasons-

1. historically, overtime wrestling has been very tentative and slow paced. the international wrestling community knows this.

2. most people, here and overseas, did not like subjectivity of various clinches as tie breakers and using the shot clock in ot would just be going down the same path.

[armspin 257]

In Canada we had unlimited OT in some tournaments prior to the best-of-3 format. It was fricking awesome. Maybe one or two matches a tournament would have a longer ot period and everyone in the gym would be watching. With stalling being called aggressively there should be very few long ot bouts now if any.

[quanon 161]

why not go to overtime if there is a push out or shot clock?

 

here are 2 reasons-

1. historically, overtime wrestling has been very tentative and slow paced. the international wrestling community knows this.

2. most people, here and overseas, did not like subjectivity of various clinches as tie breakers and using the shot clock in ot would just be going down the same path.

 

Not only is overtime wrestling tentative, but wrestling at the end of a tied match is tentative. Under the current system, only the guy with the lead will be tentative.

 

Personally, I hate the subjectivity of the shot clock -- I'd like to see all passivity/stalling rules abolished. But the theory is that the guy with a lead won't be able to sit on a lead. So FILA has tried to construct rules in which you have action throughout the match, dictated at least by the person trailing, and possibly by the guy in the lead, if his lead can be erased on the shot clock.

[gutfirst 219]

why not go to overtime if there is a push out or shot clock?

 

here are 2 reasons-

1. historically, overtime wrestling has been very tentative and slow paced. the international wrestling community knows this.

2. most people, here and overseas, did not like subjectivity of various clinches as tie breakers and using the shot clock in ot would just be going down the same path.

 

Not only is overtime wrestling tentative, but wrestling at the end of a tied match is tentative. Under the current system, only the guy with the lead will be tentative.

 

exactly. the guy with the lead will be tentative, he has earned that. the other guy should press the action. now we have exciting wrestling.

 

history has shown us that the majority of the time, with ot as an option, both guys coast into ot. then neither guy wants to commit and potentially make a mistake that may cost them the match. ot will lead to more boring wrestling. other theories are fairy tales.

[HuskyHero133 52]

OT leads to exciting matches with more legitimate results.

 

Why do we want less wrestling or matches decided by questionable and ever changing criteria?

 

I don't get it.

[GranbyTroll 441]

OT will be exciting if one wrestlers knows s/he will lose the match on criteria without scoring. Also, freestyle with the pushout is now generally much more exciting now that both guys have to try to stay in the center. You won't have Rulon vs Karelin style grind overtimes, or Chris Perry style walk out of bounds every 5 seconds overtimes.

[sbdude 16]

I don't like the first score as a criteria. If I score first, I now effectively have a 2 score lead as my opponent must score twice to get ahead (assuming equal scores). If he only scores once, I'm still ahead. Guys that know they have a two score lead will really be shutting down, blocking off, etc. knowing they can waste time, give up a score, waste the remaining time and win. I think first score criteria would lead to less action.