3 point takedowns but 2 point reversals

[pmilk]

Paul,

Thanks for your kind words...Jimmy Brown was my only loss my junior year in HS. He won 3-2 in the State Semi's at 107lbs, and yes, he was pretty tough. My sophomore year at MSU, we were ranked #1 and UM was #2...Jim was UM's 118 and my head coach, Grady Peninger, came into the locker room and told me that he thinks Brown might bump up to 126 to wrestle me since he beat me in HS. That way UM could possibly win the first two matches instead of maybe just one. I was so hoping they would bump him up...but they didn't! They ended up beating us anyway.  My history has always been, if I beat someone the first time, I never lose to him in future matches and if I lose to someone the first time, I have never lost the ensuing encounters. So he's one up on me..forever!  I had a lot of respect for Jim, for one, I'm not easy to beat and he did it, and two he had a very nice career at UM. The only guy in my entire career to beat me both times we ever wrestled was Mike Frick, Lehigh. In fact at the East/West All Star match in Madison, Wis., in '76 Mike was at 142 and I was at 134. When we were taking the group picture, we were next to each other and I had some brownies and he was eyeing them up and down. I offered a couple of big pieces to him hoping that would make him think about staying at 42...damn, he didn't take any and ended beating me in the finals in Tucson. Look back at some of the guys he beat. I think that year he started at 150 and ended up at 134 for NCAA's. He beat Churella (at 150) in the Midlands that year something like 7-1 but he has nice resume of former and future NCAA champions that he had beaten during his career.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and reliving the pain of remembering Jim Brown! haha.

[1032004]

On 11/17/2023 at 3:46 PM, pmilk said:

103..you are correct! I was actually stalling: by running the clock out, keeping my lead, not taking risks... but I WAS scoring at the same time. RT is scoring. Getting him frustrated and tired was scoring. Feeling him quit underneath me was scoring. Scoring to me didn't necessarily mean points. It meant that I had control and an edge. That translates to his reactions being slower if/when he gets to neutral, which then makes my job easier. On top was a rest for me and a lot of work for him because of how I was using, weight, torques, leverages, and imbalances to make him fight hard to stay even and HIM not get called or stalling.  Any "turn" or pinning combination requires tying up or anchoring wrists, ankles, arms, legs, waist, etc. "Stalling" is obvious. Smart stalling is not. No ref could assume that with all the action, movement, change offs, and "turn" attempts, that I was stalling...because I wasn't according to the rules. 

But now the rules have changed...

[Jim L]

54 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

But now the rules have changed...

Yes, and for the better.  

[11986]

On 11/16/2023 at 3:52 PM, pmilk said:

Full disclosure, I pinned one guy in hs and one in college.

that's a crazy stat, given all your accolades!

[pmilk]

haha...the rules have changed many times to address "stalling" ...smart wrestlers figure out how to work the rules to their advantage and they will figure out how to "smart stall."  That was the part of wrestling I always hated...being outsmarted by an opponent, not the rules. 

[Paul158]

22 hours ago, pmilk said:

Paul,

Thanks for your kind words...Jimmy Brown was my only loss my junior year in HS. He won 3-2 in the State Semi's at 107lbs, and yes, he was pretty tough. My sophomore year at MSU, we were ranked #1 and UM was #2...Jim was UM's 118 and my head coach, Grady Peninger, came into the locker room and told me that he thinks Brown might bump up to 126 to wrestle me since he beat me in HS. That way UM could possibly win the first two matches instead of maybe just one. I was so hoping they would bump him up...but they didn't! They ended up beating us anyway.  My history has always been, if I beat someone the first time, I never lose to him in future matches and if I lose to someone the first time, I have never lost the ensuing encounters. So he's one up on me..forever!  I had a lot of respect for Jim, for one, I'm not easy to beat and he did it, and two he had a very nice career at UM. The only guy in my entire career to beat me both times we ever wrestled was Mike Frick, Lehigh. In fact at the East/West All Star match in Madison, Wis., in '76 Mike was at 142 and I was at 134. When we were taking the group picture, we were next to each other and I had some brownies and he was eyeing them up and down. I offered a couple of big pieces to him hoping that would make him think about staying at 42...damn, he didn't take any and ended beating me in the finals in Tucson. Look back at some of the guys he beat. I think that year he started at 150 and ended up at 134 for NCAA's. He beat Churella (at 150) in the Midlands that year something like 7-1 but he has nice resume of former and future NCAA champions that he had beaten during his career.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and reliving the pain of remembering Jim Brown! haha.

When you went to MIch. State your freshman year were you 17 and then turned 18 in October.? Is it true you were the youngest NCAA Champion at the time? ( maybe you are still) These days its extremely rare to wrestle your freshman year. I was also 17 when I started college. When you were at Maple Heights did you know just how tough the greater Cleveland area was when compared to the other states?

[1032004]

3 hours ago, pmilk said:

haha...the rules have changed many times to address "stalling" ...smart wrestlers figure out how to work the rules to their advantage and they will figure out how to "smart stall."  That was the part of wrestling I always hated...being outsmarted by an opponent, not the rules. 

As I said before…

On 11/17/2023 at 7:38 AM, 1032004 said:

I’ll take this as you admitting much of what you were describing is actually stalling, just trying to make it look like it’s not…

 

[pmilk]

Paul, As far as I know, according to the NWHOF and Jay Hammond (deceased- History of Collegiate Wrestling), I am still the youngest NCAA Champion in history at 18yrs. 3mo. exactly. Had Lee Kemp won it his freshman year, he would have been the youngest beating me by a week. Freshman wrestlers back in the day were very rare, mainly, because athletes weren't held back like many are today. That extra year or so of maturity helps now.  Also, back then, there really wasn't a limit on how many scholarships wrestling could have, like today (9.9). If a school could afford to give 15 full rides for wrestling, they could. If there was an NCAA limit, I wasn't aware of it.  It was always rumored that at Iowa State, everyone was on full ride. I was a walk-on, but I know there were more than 15 guys on full ride and several more on partials my freshman year. There was also no limit on how many kids could be on a college wrestling team and I think the limit now is 30 or something like that. My freshman year I believe we started with close to 60 wrestlers and then they'd start to drop out as the season progressed. There were close to 170 (maybe more) D1 programs back then and now we're down to about 76 or so. D2 champions, runners-up, and thirds plus D3 Champions and several wild cards were allowed into the D1 NCAA's. Very, very competitive. Check out some of the brackets back in the 70's and some of them had like 37-40 guys in a bracket...8 min matches, weigh-ins could be nite before or the next morning, 1lb allowance in Jan, 2lb allowance in Feb, and 1lb allowance each day of the NCAA...so on Sat nite finals...126 was actually 130...That was a good rule. Everyone had to make flat wt. before they could take advantage of the wt allowances.

[gimpeltf]

I think freshmen could compete a couple years before you came on the scene but still few did. You were likely the first most noticeable one we saw.  There was a scholarship limit of 11 prior to the across the board 10% cut in the early 90s. I'm not sure when it started. I don't remember talk of limits in the 70s either. Never thought about it until you mentioned it. Prior to the 70s, I suspect the better way to refer to it was that there was no limit to the under the table "scholarships" given.

[Paul158]

21 minutes ago, pmilk said:

Paul, As far as I know, according to the NWHOF and Jay Hammond (deceased- History of Collegiate Wrestling), I am still the youngest NCAA Champion in history at 18yrs. 3mo. exactly. Had Lee Kemp won it his freshman year, he would have been the youngest beating me by a week. Freshman wrestlers back in the day were very rare, mainly, because athletes weren't held back like many are today. That extra year or so of maturity helps now.  Also, back then, there really wasn't a limit on how many scholarships wrestling could have, like today (9.9). If a school could afford to give 15 full rides for wrestling, they could. If there was an NCAA limit, I wasn't aware of it.  It was always rumored that at Iowa State, everyone was on full ride. I was a walk-on, but I know there were more than 15 guys on full ride and several more on partials my freshman year. There was also no limit on how many kids could be on a college wrestling team and I think the limit now is 30 or something like that. My freshman year I believe we started with close to 60 wrestlers and then they'd start to drop out as the season progressed. There were close to 170 (maybe more) D1 programs back then and now we're down to about 76 or so. D2 champions, runners-up, and thirds plus D3 Champions and several wild cards were allowed into the D1 NCAA's. Very, very competitive. Check out some of the brackets back in the 70's and some of them had like 37-40 guys in a bracket...8 min matches, weigh-ins could be nite before or the next morning, 1lb allowance in Jan, 2lb allowance in Feb, and 1lb allowance each day of the NCAA...so on Sat nite finals...126 was actually 130...That was a good rule. Everyone had to make flat wt. before they could take advantage of the wt allowances.

Really good stuff . I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. When I went to college in Arizona I really had no idea how tough the competition was in Ohio. Everyone in the wrestling room were 2 or 3 time state champs from the surrounding states. I was able to beat all of them. Were you aware how good Ohio was prior to going to college? Back in the day there weren't large tournaments with teams from all over the country. I believe there was only one wrestling magazine. But one thing for certain ,we had the Brakeman report that came out every year.

[pmilk]

gimp...yes, freshman were eligible a couple years before my freshman year. My brother Tom was seeded #1 at 134 the 1970 NCAA's his freshman year in. Lost to Keller from Okie State in the semi's 5-4. And yes, there were a lot of rumors about "under the table" scholarships. Again, I don't know if there was an NCAA limit...I just know there were way more than 9.9 full rides on our team in '71-72.

Paul, I knew NE Ohio was very tough and I knew Maple Hts. was tough, but I really didn't follow the national scene much. My dad always talked to us about how good PA, NY, and NY were...especially on mat wrestling. He'd always tell us that if we were going to wrestle in college "you better learn how to get your ass off bottom or they'll wear you out!" He also admired Roderick (Okie State) and Tommy Evans (Okla Univ) for their td's and stand-ups. So their philosophies and techniques played a very prominent role in the style he developed at Maple. Roderick used to say, "If I can take you down, and I can get away, how are you going to beat me?" Sage words indeed.  

Edited November 21, 2023 by pmilk
add context and respond to prior poster

[russelscout]

On 10/30/2023 at 7:38 PM, wrestle87 said:

I’m really looking forward to different perspectives that change my opinion on this.  I love wrestling and I don’t want this change to bug me all year.  Right now it really does.  

I just watched the Ohio State wrestle-offs.  

I really dislike how overweighted a 3 point takedown is compared to other scoring events.

I’m open to change (I watch freestyle just as much) but I really don’t think this gets the job done.  We now have a ruleset that aggressively overweights the takedown, and feels like it will drive everything to a poor facsimile of freestyle.

I admit I didn’t do my homework before watching, but I was rather taken aback by how different a 3 point takedown impacted match pace.  

This ruleset removes a number of different possibilities for interesting exchanges actually making a match equal, and it doesn’t reward the awesome non-controlled exposure throws that freestyle and greco do, which are what make freestyle so awesome to me.

Someone who likes this ruleset, I’m begging you, please change my mind and help me like this rule change.

I think we will look back at the 3 point takedown as a huge mistake. Guys already were getting one takedown and sitting on the lead for a win. Now you can do that even more. Get a takedown in the first, allow two escapes, get an escape of your own, and with a 2 point lead you can get 2 stall calls and win the match. 

The leadership behind this decision is f’ing stupid…. Not to mention they changed the one thing fans actually engage in; yelling TWOOOOO when there is a takedown. 

[1032004]

14 minutes ago, russelscout said:

I think we will look back at the 3 point takedown as a huge mistake. Guys already were getting one takedown and sitting on the lead for a win. Now you can do that even more. Get a takedown in the first, allow two escapes, get an escape of your own, and with a 2 point lead you can get 2 stall calls and win the match. 

I was afraid this would be an issue, but in what I’ve watched so far it has not been IMO.

[Jim L]

12 hours ago, russelscout said:

I think we will look back at the 3 point takedown as a huge mistake. Guys already were getting one takedown and sitting on the lead for a win. Now you can do that even more. Get a takedown in the first, allow two escapes, get an escape of your own, and with a 2 point lead you can get 2 stall calls and win the match. 

The leadership behind this decision is f’ing stupid…. Not to mention they changed the one thing fans actually engage in; yelling TWOOOOO when there is a takedown. 

IMO, it is just as likely that wrestlers will not sit on leads, because they will know that a 3-4 point lead is not safe with 3 point TDs.

Realistically, it will not change much strategy as it is really hard to score points in D1. Wrestlers with leads will try to stall no matter what the rules are

[Jim L]

12 hours ago, russelscout said:

…. Not to mention they changed the one thing fans actually engage in; yelling TWOOOOO when there is a takedown. 

You are forgetting the Hawkeye fans who engage in screaming "STALLING" as soon as the whistle is blown. 

[boconnell]

Very weird that the original post is a freestyle fan who doesn't like the reversal being worth less than the TD.

[boconnell]

13 hours ago, russelscout said:

I think we will look back at the 3 point takedown as a huge mistake. Guys already were getting one takedown and sitting on the lead for a win. Now you can do that even more. Get a takedown in the first, allow two escapes, get an escape of your own, and with a 2 point lead you can get 2 stall calls and win the match. 

The leadership behind this decision is f’ing stupid…. Not to mention they changed the one thing fans actually engage in; yelling TWOOOOO when there is a takedown. 

I completely agree that this will benefit the guy who scores on offense.

[russelscout]

14 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I was afraid this would be an issue, but in what I’ve watched so far it has not been IMO.

Just wait… by the end of the season that might change

[russelscout]

1 hour ago, Jim L said:

IMO, it is just as likely that wrestlers will not sit on leads, because they will know that a 3-4 point lead is not safe with 3 point TDs.

Realistically, it will not change much strategy as it is really hard to score points in D1. Wrestlers with leads will try to stall no matter what the rules are

There is more room to stall with a lead. By increasing the value of a takedown, you’ve devalued everything else, including stalling points. It’s a lot safer to do nothing and fend off attacks than to risk being offensive, give up 3 on a go around, and blow a lead.

[russelscout]

1 hour ago, boconnell said:

I completely agree that this will benefit the guy who scores on offense.

One score and put the running shoes on! Great for the sport!

This rule did nothing to solve stalling and boring matches… if anything, it will make it worse.

Edited November 24, 2023 by russelscout

[pmilk]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but, can someone explain to me what stalling is and what a boring match is? I'm just guessing here, but is a wrestler who is 1-2pts ahead on a top notch, high caliber opponent supposed to take silly risks to please the fans or is he supposed to do what is necessary to win the match for himself and the team? I mean, if one is "stalling" and it's obvious, then he needs to be called, but if he's active and actually wrestling and doing the things as prescribed in the rule book to avoid being called for stalling, even tho he's not scoring and protecting his lead, then what is the problem? Did some of you lose to folks who got ahead, stayed ahead, and killed time effectively and if so, why weren't you ahead so you could have used the same mechanisms to win a match against a very tough opponent. It's easy to run the score up against an inferior competitor, but with top notch guys, you have to play chess and that's just the way it is even if you don't like it. High scoring matches tell me that both wrestlers made a lot of mistakes. That's generally how points are scored in all sports.  Low scoring wins tells me that both wrestlers made few mistakes, were very calculating, and did not take foolish risks.  A lot of this comes down to coaching. Good athletes are very coachable and understand/learn the nuances of the game. Good coaches know how to "program" their athletes for all kinds of situations. If you have never been to the top of the mountain, you may not understand what it takes to get there. You aren't going to TF or pin everyone. Along the way you're going to win some matches 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, OT, etc., some may be boring or appear to be "stalling," and to expect "fireworks" or "recklessness" to please the crowd for every match is just so unrealistic....and foolish.  

[MPhillips]

@pmilkThis is a message board. Don't mistakenly believe that all/any of the folks here know anything or have well thought out ideas. A quick browse around the college and international boards should suffice and if that doesn't do it, head over to the Non Wrestling Topics board for a cornucopia of ignorant...

[1032004]

1 hour ago, pmilk said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but, can someone explain to me what stalling is and what a boring match is? I'm just guessing here, but is a wrestler who is 1-2pts ahead on a top notch, high caliber opponent supposed to take silly risks to please the fans or is he supposed to do what is necessary to win the match for himself and the team? I mean, if one is "stalling" and it's obvious, then he needs to be called, but if he's active and actually wrestling and doing the things as prescribed in the rule book to avoid being called for stalling, even tho he's not scoring and protecting his lead, then what is the problem? Did some of you lose to folks who got ahead, stayed ahead, and killed time effectively and if so, why weren't you ahead so you could have used the same mechanisms to win a match against a very tough opponent. It's easy to run the score up against an inferior competitor, but with top notch guys, you have to play chess and that's just the way it is even if you don't like it. High scoring matches tell me that both wrestlers made a lot of mistakes. That's generally how points are scored in all sports.  Low scoring wins tells me that both wrestlers made few mistakes, were very calculating, and did not take foolish risks.  A lot of this comes down to coaching. Good athletes are very coachable and understand/learn the nuances of the game. Good coaches know how to "program" their athletes for all kinds of situations. If you have never been to the top of the mountain, you may not understand what it takes to get there. You aren't going to TF or pin everyone. Along the way you're going to win some matches 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, OT, etc., some may be boring or appear to be "stalling," and to expect "fireworks" or "recklessness" to please the crowd for every match is just so unrealistic....and foolish.  

Well another comment in relation to @russelscout’s post, I personally don’t think there was much issue with how stalling was called from neutral.  So as long as stalling continues to get called when it happens, then hopefully we can avoid his fear of guys just stalling after getting an early takedown.

To answer your question, here is an excerpt from the rulebook from the neutral stalling section:

”each wrestler shall attempt to work toward the center of the mat, and continue wrestling to attempt to score a takedown, regardless of the time or score of the match”

That doesn’t mean they need to “take silly risks,” but they should be doing something.   Nonetheless, it can still be exciting from neutral if the guy in the lead is mostly just playing defense if the guy in the lead is aggressively trying to score to catch up.  What is NOT exciting is in top/bottom if the top guy is just laying on top of the bottom guy.  For that reason I think the new rule that the top wrestler must work for near fall is the best rule change this year in terms of creating more action.

[ionel]

11 hours ago, russelscout said:

There is more room to stall with a lead. 

Those who win by techfall must be the biggest stallers.  I'm surprised @CAELStalledLikeAMUG hasn't started a thread about it.  

[Paul158]

26 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well another comment in relation to @russelscout’s post, I personally don’t think there was much issue with how stalling was called from neutral.  So as long as stalling continues to get called when it happens, then hopefully we can avoid his fear of guys just stalling after getting an early takedown.

To answer your question, here is an excerpt from the rulebook from the neutral stalling section:

”each wrestler shall attempt to work toward the center of the mat, and continue wrestling to attempt to score a takedown, regardless of the time or score of the match”

That doesn’t mean they need to “take silly risks,” but they should be doing something.   Nonetheless, it can still be exciting from neutral if the guy in the lead is mostly just playing defense if the guy in the lead is aggressively trying to score to catch up.  What is NOT exciting is in top/bottom if the top guy is just laying on top of the bottom guy.  For that reason I think the new rule that the top wrestler must work for near fall is the best rule change this year in terms of creating more action.

Wouldn't they both be stalling if the top guy was just laying on the bottom guy. What are the rules bottom wrestler? Just laying on the mat is stalling unless its freestyle.