Ankle grab

[Kansasdeanhwt]

7 hours ago, Not134 said:

I can appreciate a scramble, but the ankle grab to force a stalemate should be called for what it is...stalling.

Exactly. These guys are literally grabbing ankles just to hold on. It annoys me. 

[lightweight]

7 hours ago, VakAttack said:

They just had Kemermer  leave, who was very offfensive, and Desanto, maybe the most offensive wrestler in history (in terms of output).  Kennedy is typically a high output wrestler (although I agree he wasn't against Hamiti last night).  Then you have Siebrecht and Cass, who are two completely different types of wrestlers, but also offensive.  They do tend to gravitate towards the brawler types, though.

Kemerer went to the same PA high school as Lee, so there was probably some common club/coaching along the way (although since they were at such different weight classes obviously technique gets adapted to the body types).  

And I liked the little double entendre with respect to Desanto... 

[russelscout]

9 hours ago, SocraTease said:

That's what Kennedy kept doing to Hamiti.  

It's notable that the most of the few offensive and exciting Iowa wrestlers were largely first trained elsewhere: Eierman, Woods, etc. before arriving to Iowa.

Otherwise, they just emulate the Brands old school tough guy push and shove, strength and aggressiion style and approach.   More defense than offense.

Even what Lee (who is very offensive) does was mostly imported from PA when he arrived in Iowa.  

It's like Iowa is trying to live analog in a digital or virtual world.  
 

Surely you’re not dumb enough to argue that going for a stalemate is unique to Iowa wrestlers…

[Nailbender]

10 hours ago, russelscout said:

Surely you’re not dumb enough to argue that going for a stalemate is unique to Iowa wrestlers…

Surely you aren't surprised?

    The post also praises any team member who transferred, as if they don't really count as Iowa wrestlers. Eierman practically handed one leg to every opponent so he could counter. How is that "offensive"?

Just more tired anti-Iowa tripe disguised as imaginary wrestling analysis.

 

Grabbing an ankle is no more stalling than a sprawl. You're trying to stop the other guy from scoring and sometimes you can turn that into a score of your own. Other times, you get a stalemate. This whole conversation is dumb. By definition a stalemate is BOTH guys holding on and not improving. It doesn't matter who started it. If one guy isn't shooting, he should be hit for stalling. 

 

 

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Surely you aren't surprised?

    The post also praises any team member who transferred, as if they don't really count as Iowa wrestlers. Eierman practically handed one leg to every opponent so he could counter. How is that "offensive"?

Just more tired anti-Iowa tripe disguised as imaginary wrestling analysis.. 

 

 

That was Kolat's signature move.   He scored offensive points off of that like crazy.   Give them the leg, counter with the gumby knee, an go behind and get the takedown. 

mspart

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

That was Kolat's signature move.   He scored offensive points off of that like crazy.   Give them the leg, counter with the gumby knee, an go behind and get the takedown. 

mspart

I hear you. Counter wrestling is absolutely a thing. I just wouldn't use it to describe a highly offensive wrestler. 

[Holtfan]

While we're at it, let's make it such that if someone shoots, and you wizard, you are stalling---because it's nothing more than an attempt to stop the offensive wrestler from finishing. 

That's how absurd some of you all are viewing the sport.   

I got into an argument with an official once who dinged a kid for stalling because when the opponent shot, he sprawled. Isn't that the counter to a shot? Isn't this the same as if someone puts a half on, I look away and peel the hand?   

[Not134]

What's a wizard?

[ugarles]

1 hour ago, Holtfan said:

I got into an argument with an official once who dinged a kid for stalling because when the opponent shot, he sprawled. Isn't that the counter to a shot? Isn't this the same as if someone puts a half on, I look away and peel the hand?   

I think there is a difference between being engaged and sprawling defensively and preemptively backing away; the gray area is tough to call. The way the international rules force close grappling in neutral makes this easier to call imo.

[Holtfan]

1 hour ago, Not134 said:

What's a wizard?

Whizzer just doesn't sound right.....   

[Holtfan]

1 hour ago, ugarles said:

I think there is a difference between being engaged and sprawling defensively and preemptively backing away; the gray area is tough to call. The way the international rules force close grappling in neutral makes this easier to call imo.

That was my point.  How many times have you heard a crowd start screaming for stalling because Wrestler A has shot five times to Wrestler B's none?  It's not a question of how many times you shoot, it's a question of whether you are engaging or (as you said) preemptively backing away.  Sprawling on a shot attempt is the text-book defense. It doesn't mean Wrestler B isn't engaging, it means he is countering the actions by Wrestler A.  It's not much different than countering with a Whizzer (spelled how it should be to make others happy) and stopping the shot.  

Just my view from the cheap seats.........

[lightweight]

4 hours ago, Holtfan said:

That was my point.  How many times have you heard a crowd start screaming for stalling because Wrestler A has shot five times to Wrestler B's none?  It's not a question of how many times you shoot, it's a question of whether you are engaging or (as you said) preemptively backing away.  Sprawling on a shot attempt is the text-book defense. It doesn't mean Wrestler B isn't engaging, it means he is countering the actions by Wrestler A.  It's not much different than countering with a Whizzer (spelled how it should be to make others happy) and stopping the shot.  

Just my view from the cheap seats.........

True as stated.

However, HS officials I know keep a 'shot clock' in their head, and if the count is 3-0 and then the wrestlers makes a fourth one their opponent is going to draw a stall call. 

My personal gripe is that HS officials don't call stalling enough; college officials do a better job at this, on average IMHO.

[Holtfan]

23 hours ago, lightweight said:

However, HS officials I know keep a 'shot clock' in their head, and if the count is 3-0 and then the wrestlers makes a fourth one their opponent is going to draw a stall call. 

And my gripe is that "shot clock" shouldn't matter. If both wrestlers are engaged and neither is backing down, what difference does it make?  How about this scenerio...wrestler A on bottom, stands up, and wrestler B lifts him back to the mat....rinse and repeat five times.  Is wrestler B stalling because all he is doing is returning the opponent to the mat and wrestler A seems to be carrying all the action?  You'd never see that called, but it's not much different in context--wrestler B is defending the action created by wrestler A. 


 

[Lipdrag]

On 3/6/2023 at 2:58 PM, VakAttack said:

Not really; if one wrestler is attacking so much (like Hamiti last night, or Brooks against Romero as well) the other guy has no time to initiate their own attacks.

The old "I did not have time to wrestle" trick.  Second time this week we fell for that.

[lightweight]

12 hours ago, Holtfan said:

And my gripe is that "shot clock" shouldn't matter. If both wrestlers are engaged and neither is backing down, what difference does it make?  How about this scenerio...wrestler A on bottom, stands up, and wrestler B lifts him back to the mat....rinse and repeat five times.  Is wrestler B stalling because all he is doing is returning the opponent to the mat and wrestler A seems to be carrying all the action?  You'd never see that called, but it's not much different in context--wrestler B is defending the action created by wrestler A. 


 

I would say those are not comparable in two ways - in your scenario one of the wrestlers is on bottom, and therefore has a more limited set of choices, and, he is doing something, i.e. he is standing up.

In the example from the OP the wrestlers are neutral, and so both have the same full range of options, and one of them is not doing anything, just standing there waiting for his opponent to take all the risks.  

And the 'shot clock' is not a rule, so this is not prescriptive, I'm just reporting it as descriptive as to how some officials treat this situation.  

[Lipdrag]

On 3/7/2023 at 3:35 PM, Not134 said:

What's a wizard?

Harry Potter.  Big time wrestler.

[MarkGA]

On 3/7/2023 at 9:07 PM, lightweight said:

True as stated.

However, HS officials I know keep a 'shot clock' in their head, and if the count is 3-0 and then the wrestlers makes a fourth one their opponent is going to draw a stall call. 

My personal gripe is that HS officials don't call stalling enough; college officials do a better job at this, on average IMHO.

You should watch the ACC finals if you can find them.  One ref there was stalling happy.  He seemed to think defensive wrestling, which is allowed in folk style (as opposed to free style), is a reason to call stalling. 

[lightweight]

1 minute ago, MarkGA said:

You should watch the ACC finals if you can find them.  One ref there was stalling happy.  He seemed to think defensive wrestling, which is allowed in folk style (as opposed to free style), is a reason to call stalling. 

I did watch the ACC finals.  Which match are you referring to?  

(re: "defensive wrestling is allowed" - actually, the HS rulebook says that (1) from neutral you have to be attempting a TD, (2) from bottom attempting an escape or reversal, and (3) from the top a turn.  Everything else is stalling.)