3 point takedowns but 2 point reversals

[1032004]

1 hour ago, jross said:

@1032004 Does the 3-point takedown create even more incentive to pick bottom than a 2-point takedown, given the need to narrow the point gap and the common strategy to secure a 1-point escape?
 

In my opinion, no.  I don’t think we’ll really see any more guys choosing bottom due to the 3 point takedown.  If anything, I think it could result in a few more (but probably not a huge amount) guys choosing neutral to just go for a takedown instead, and not risk being ridden.  Especially since there’s now also the potential for a 3 point nearfall in addition to 2 & 4.

[Leg rider]

I think removing the point for escapes would be incredibly dumb, and the biggest fix for mat wrestling is more stalling calls on top, the last few years I have seen to many guys get on top, ride totally parallel and just hook a leg to keep the bottom guy from working up and then the bottom guy gets hit with a stall call

[jross]

Pat Milkovich 

I have to respectfully disagree with the comments that it is somehow the top man's stalling that's keeping the bottom man down or makes wrestling boring. At what point does it become the bottom man's responsibility to control that position. I was taught that being on bottom was my opportunity to score points and to limit the top man's accumulation of riding time control and either get me to neutral or reverse him. I also learned that, just like on the feet for TD's, there are things I can do on bottom to create setups and counters that allow me to escape or reverse in a short amount of time, regardless of the top guy's tactics. It doesn't matter if the top man catches/rides ankles, puts in legs, spirals, or whatever.  My first responsibility is prevention (i.e., movement or standup on the whistle and establishing hand control) and then it's countering.  When you are lousy on bottom, it makes the top man's job much easier. Just like when you are lousy on top. It makes the bottom man's job much easier to get out.  When you get broken down to your stomach, break down to your elbows, let your wrists/ankles get tied up, don't control his hands/wrists, don't create movement/get to your feet, get hip separation, or let a guy get legs in...that's your fault or your coach's fault...yours for either not having learned/drilled the techniques necessary for success or your coach's for not having taught you those techniques needed to succeed.  I just find it utterly amazing that instead of learning all the different methods that would help one on bottom, then the discussion turns to eliminating those positions or requirements. You want more action in the top/bottom positions? Award 1 pt or every 30 seconds of RT.  That would force both wrestlers to be incredibly more active. As some of you folks ponder criticizing/reacting to my opinion/perspective, be careful that you don't walk into a setup. 

[jross]

More from Pat Milkovich

In the body of my response, being on your stomach is one of the prime reasons one gets "ridden,"  or turned.  Why is he on his stomach to begin with? There are a multitude of methods to prevent that. Virtually everything in wrestling has a stimulus/response mechanism involved, called "setups." There are setups to takedowns, setups for riding, mat returns, breakdowns, pinning, escaping, and reversals, etc. Once a wrestler understands those processes, it rarely matters whether he is on top, bottom, or neutral.  The S/R methods all share commonalities between humans and they are predictable. Trying to adequately explain, verbally, the techniques of riding is extremely challenging. Top and bottom wrestling are the most difficult aspects of wrestling to learn and to teach. It's becoming a lost art and I understand why so many coaches and wrestlers like freestyle. It’s way easier. Consequently, it's why I love folkstyle, a wrestler can't be good in just one facet, he has to exhibit comprehension and competency in all three facets. 

On bottom, one of the important techniques is to keep your hands/wrists free.  Watch the NCAA's and notice how many wrestlers break down to an elbow while on bottom.  Big NO, NO. Wrists are begging to be controlled.  Stay off your elbows, keep your hands/wrists free,  stay off your belly, and you've just gotten light years better from bottom.

Riding or controlling the bottom man doesn't mean you grow roots on his ankle or stay stuck in one position. The true art of top wrestling is learning to change off, switch sides, and work the bottom man from head to ankles, while making him carry your weight, keeping him out of balance, and creating pressures and torques to make him use more of his strength and energy to neutralize or counteract all the forces. You and others may call it stalling, but it isn't.  It has a cumulative effect on the bottom man's stamina and psyche.  He's not scoring points, times ticking down, he's frustrated, fighting hard wasting energy and getting tired, top guy is gaining a point, and you're in his head because he knows he can't get out unless you let him out. If/when he does get out, his reactions may be slower because he wasted so much energy on bottom...and your'e still in his head with riding time. Many times in close matches with quality kids, the determining factor its RT. That's why RT is an asset to the sport.  No one should be given a free out or up, just because he can't do it himself. If he doesn't like being on bottom, learn to get out and you are now in your desired "neutral." If someone can dominate you on top, he deserves some reward.  Appropriately, that is riding time, control time, you suck on bottom time... call it whatever, but the top guy should not be penalized and taken out of a position of dominance/control and put on his feet just because the bottom man is inept. That's actually a form of "income inequality." There are plenty of lousy bottom wrestlers who can't get out but are difficult to turn because they've spent so much time there. So RT is his penalty and top's reward.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

Testify, Pat Milkovich.

[Jim L]

45 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Testify, Pat Milkovich.

Respectfully disagree. It may take  significant skill to ride or be good on the bottom, that doesn't mean it is great for the sport. I challenge anyone that has DVRed a D1 wrestling match, what are the times you fast forward? 

[wrestle87]

I think a point per minute of riding time would add the most juice to folkstyle.  It emphasizes the point of advantage vs disadvantage wrestling, and would really make coaches rethink their match strategy.  It also punishes wrestlers way more for weaknesses.

[jross]

Regardless of my viewpoints, I appreciate passionate, well-worded opinions and expertise.  Testify indeed.

[1032004]

3 hours ago, jross said:

More from Pat Milkovich

Riding or controlling the bottom man doesn't mean you grow roots on his ankle or stay stuck in one position. The true art of top wrestling is learning to change off, switch sides, and work the bottom man from head to ankles, while making him carry your weight, keeping him out of balance, and creating pressures and torques to make him use more of his strength and energy to neutralize or counteract all the forces. You and others may call it stalling, but it isn't.  

Based on the new rule, if the top wrestler is not working for a fall (yes I get that is subjective but I still like the rule), then yes this is in fact stalling.

I don’t necessarily hate the ability to score more riding time points though.  But that would result in less people choosing bottom as well.

[Offthemat]

I would like anything that removes the ref’s ability to subjectively award points.  But I still have a hard time figuring out how the guy on top can stall unless the guy on bottom is.  

[1032004]

54 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

But I still have a hard time figuring out how the guy on top can stall unless the guy on bottom is.  

I’m not sure how a thread about 3 point takedowns turned into top and bottom stalling, but:

-sitting on an ankle

-double boots like 90% of the time 

-Double spiral ride

 

to name a few

 

[Offthemat]

14 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I’m not sure how a thread about 3 point takedowns turned into top and bottom stalling, but:

-sitting on an ankle

-double boots like 90% of the time 

-Double spiral ride

 

to name a few

 

Like Milkovich says, if you let it happen to you.  

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Like Milkovich says, if you let it happen to you.  

Lol that doesn’t make any sense.  If you “let” someone lay on top of you, that means the bottom guy is stalling? No, that means the top guy is stalling, especially based on the new rule.

[JimmyCinnabon]

On 11/1/2023 at 1:35 PM, MPhillips said:

No. A guy is about to escape and the other let's him go. Nightmare...

 

This was my first thought. You basically will have zero actual escapes at this point. You can simply release a guy who is about to get an escape. And even then it becomes yet another judgement call by the ref? That would make it even worse.

The only way I can see this maybe working is by declaring you are releasing a guy before the start of the period when they take down or on the restart. But that just means guys can game the system who are up one point and aren't good at riding. Let's say they are up one point with ten seconds to go and there is a restart. Now they don't have to ride for ten seconds, they can opt for a no point release and run around the mat for ten seconds to win. It just makes no sense.

[JVStateChamp]

15 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I would like anything that removes the ref’s ability to subjectively award points.  But I still have a hard time figuring out how the guy on top can stall unless the guy on bottom is.  

The objective on top is to score. Using double boots, an ankle ride, or a double spiral ride is a mechanism to stop action not create. The top wrestler is also noted as the offensive wrestler in which none of these strategies are actively offensive. I am all for using these techniques to work towards a turn/fall, but in many cases, it is used to build riding time. 

[Offthemat]

59 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

The objective on top is to score. Using double boots, an ankle ride, or a double spiral ride is a mechanism to stop action not create. The top wrestler is also noted as the offensive wrestler in which none of these strategies are actively offensive. I am all for using these techniques to work towards a turn/fall, but in many cases, it is used to build riding time. 

It’s not right to award points to a wrestler who doesn’t score them.  

[1032004]

23 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s not right to award points to a wrestler who doesn’t score them.  

So you’re saying to get rid of cautions and penalty points?

[Leg rider]

I understand the argument about not letting yourself get broken down, and trust me I was a leg rider, I would have loved just sitting there holding my opponent down, but the reward for breaking down your opponent when you are on top is not that you can just sit there and have him get hit with a stall. You won the initial action, that doesn't free you from the responsibility to keep wrestling it just means you have given yourself a better position to do so from

[JVStateChamp]

47 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s not right to award points to a wrestler who doesn’t score them.  

I agree, my main argument was more that a wrestler earning an escape is worth the point. Taking away an escape point does not create more action. In mat wrestling, there is a give and take between working for a turn and riding, as well as working for an escape and working to not get turned. 

My unpopular opinion is that stalling has turned into following a stepping out of bounds and a 5-second count, rather than knowing when a wrestler is purposefully avoiding action and scoring which can be called at any point in a match.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

On 10/31/2023 at 3:20 PM, Caveira said:

Just call stalling yes.   Humans stall when they have a lead and they are tired.   Or when they are just tired.   3 point takedowns will make that worse imo.    
 

wkn maybe a question for you.  Did 4 point near falls lead to a meaningful deviation in the number of pins ?  It certainly doesn’t feel that way…. And certainly didn’t get rid of staling by incentivizing pinfalls.   
 

please stop changing the rules every darn year.    

So, I saw this question when you first posed it and it saddened me. Not the question, per se, but the fact that I did not have the data to answer the question properly. 

But, then out of the blue, another member of the forum came along and offered me exactly the thing I was missing, a match by match breakdown of every NCAA Tournament from 1988 - 2021. I about crapped my pants, I was so excited.

And while I need to do a little more work to answer your question better (even though it was very poorly phrased, after all what the hell is a pin?), I think this simple bar chart suggests what the correct answer is.

No, there probably was not a meaningful change in pinfalls as a result of the 2016 change from 3 point near fall to 4 point near fall. However, there was likely a meaningful uptick in techfalls and major decisions.

[ionel]

11 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

No, there probably was not a meaningful change in pinfalls as a result of the 2016 change from 3 point near fall to 4 point near fall. 

No there has never been such a thing, so it can not change!

You are just making up fictitious charts. 

Edited November 8, 2023 by ionel

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

No there has never been such a thing, so it can not change!

Now you are just making up fictitious charts. 

What do you mean by "now"?

[ionel]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

What do you mean by "now"?

Know what do you mean by "now," read my post! 

[jross]

16 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Lol that doesn’t make any sense.  If you “let” someone lay on top of you, that means the bottom guy is stalling? No, that means the top guy is stalling, especially based on the new rule.

My goddaughter took second place at state last year after losing to the same girl for the third time by a single point.  She said that the top girl was stalling because she just sat on an ankle while on top.  Last night, we talked about why you let her hook the ankle to begin with.  Then we drilled two ways to get your ankle free...  Thanks for the right mindset, Pat!

[jross]

16 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Lol that doesn’t make any sense.  If you “let” someone lay on top of you, that means the bottom guy is stalling? No, that means the top guy is stalling, especially based on the new rule.

When bottom lets top get in the double boots, and bottom lets top extend them on their belly, and top is working powerhalfs while bottom is squirming, grunting, and hoping for a stalemate... who is stalling?