Olympics Are Over

[Fletcher]

Delete - misremembering stuff.

Edited Tuesday at 03:10 AM by Fletcher

[1032004]

2 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

The only rule that folkstyle needs to add is to count a neutral exposure as 4 points.

Once you get exposure points, you are considered to be in the top position. If you end up on bottom after the scramble, your opponent gets a 2 point reversal.  

1. The first result would be significantly more neutral throws (because you have the potential to get 4 regardless of the outcome and then backpoints if you keep your oponent in a danger position). I am talking about bringing us back to 80s style wrestling with Randy Lewis, Louden Swain. Folkstyle wrestling today is not the folkstyle wrestling of the 80s, and we have lost a lot because of it! Go watch NCAA matches from the 80s, while Lunatic Fringe is playing in the background, and tell me that the sport we have today remotely compares to that.

2. The second result would be exciting counters by defensive wrestlers in response to shots. This would end the boring folkstyle counters that involve rolling around on your own back to force a stalemate. Instead, we would have just as many scrambles, but they would inevitably lead to more points and more action!

3. The last result is that our athletes would be forced to have significantly better technique. A lot of folkstyle wrestlers shoot in on legs and hold on, either to stall or to try to force stalling calls. We even saw Aaron Brooks try to do this at the end of his semifinal match.  That is not good wrestling! Good wrestling is you shoot, you score.  Like Otoguro's low single.  John Smith invented the low single, but Otoguro's low single was better than any U.S. wrestler that I have seen since Smith. The reason is that folkstyle in its current form does not punish you for failing to finish your shots!

Folkstyle fans, I am not trying to take away your precious top/bottom wrestling or riding time!   Let's just make the sport more exciting by encouraging more throws and better technique!

So no 2 pts for exposure after you’re on top, just from neutral?

[Hammerlock3]

21 hours ago, Disappointed_Badger_Fan said:

Now that the Olympics are over I would just like to say folkstyle is way more interesting and way easier for casual fans to understand than freestyle. 

you suck at namling topics

[billyhoyle]

11 hours ago, 1032004 said:

So no 2 pts for exposure after you’re on top, just from neutral?

Yes, exactly. Par terre isn’t really that critical at the top levels of freestyle, and our athletes do a relatively good job learning guts and leg laces. The folkstyle fans will be happy because the change I’m proposing only alters one small aspect of the sport (the type of scrambles that happen, not the existence of scrambles), and our athletes will be better served because the way they train will directly translate to freestyle. 
 

Most folkstyle elements that distinguish it from freestyle (all the different top/bottom techniques) will remain in tact. From neutral, the product will still be highly similar to folkstyle, except now there will be more throws and less rolling on your own back.  
 

I think that this change alone, once implemented across levels and given time for youth athletes to develop, will lead to the US surpassing Russia and Iran. It addresses the single biggest issue our athletes face at the international level-the lack of fluidity in their style when scrambling with freestyle neutral exposure as a possibility. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:05 PM by billyhoyle

[1032004]

21 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

Yes, exactly. Par terre isn’t really that critical at the top levels of freestyle, and our athletes do a relatively good job learning guts and leg laces. The folkstyle fans will be happy because the change I’m proposing only alters one small aspect of the sport (the type of scrambles that happen, not the existence of scrambles), and our athletes will be better served because the way they train will directly translate to freestyle. 
 

Most folkstyle elements that distinguish it from freestyle (all the different top/bottom techniques) will remain in tact. From neutral, the product will still be highly similar to folkstyle, except now there will be more throws and less rolling on your own back.  
 

I think that this change alone, once implemented across levels and given time for youth athletes to develop, will lead to the US surpassing Russia and Iran. It addresses the single biggest issue our athletes face at the international level-the lack of fluidity in their style when scrambling with freestyle neutral exposure as a possibility. 

I kinda like it.  Would it still be based on who “initiated the move”?

I think you would see more throws, but probably less leg attacks.  Which may be a good thing for entertainment value.

[billyhoyle]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

I kinda like it.  Would it still be based on who “initiated the move”?

I think you would see more throws, but probably less leg attacks.  Which may be a good thing for entertainment value.

Yes, based on who initiated the “action”. I think we would see just as many leg attacks because we do see them in freestyle. But in our training, it would force us to actually practice good finishes because the attacking wrestler will have finish the shot and can’t rely on scrambling out of a counter. 
 

Seeing the 65 kg Japanese wrestler execute what I consider to be the cleanest low single/finish of the year is the perfect example of this. Taylor’s style of attacking/finishing is another-it played up perfectly in free.  Why did JB transition immediately to free? Because his double had an extremely clean finish. Brooks shooting and hanging onto the leg as a stall technique would have worked in folk, but didn’t in free. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:21 PM by billyhoyle

[1032004]

1 hour ago, billyhoyle said:

Yes, based on who initiated the “action”. I think we would see just as many leg attacks because we do see them in freestyle. But in our training, it would force us to actually practice good finishes because the attacking wrestler will have finish the shot and can’t rely on scrambling out of a counter. 
 

Seeing the 65 kg Japanese wrestler execute what I consider to be the cleanest low single/finish of the year is the perfect example of this. Taylor’s style of attacking/finishing is another-it played up perfectly in free.  Why did JB transition immediately to free? Because his double had an extremely clean finish. Brooks shooting and hanging onto the leg as a stall technique would have worked in folk, but didn’t in free. 

But in freestyle, a neutral exposure unless feet to back is only 2 points.  One thing I don’t like about freestyle is I feel like it’s not uncommon for someone to get crotch lifted or chest wrapped for 2, but then end up on top so it’s 2-2.   In this scenario it’d be 4-3 (assuming we’re still doing 3 pt TD’s).

But again, kudos for this idea.  It seems feasible, unlike switching the entire country to folkstyle.

[jdowntown]

As more of a folkstyle fan, I could definitely go for the more expedited reviews that freestyle uses. Watch it once or twice, then render a simple explanation. The multi-minute affairs that we sometimes see in folk are awful. (Still keep the folkstyle system for initiating reviews)

[billyhoyle]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

But in freestyle, a neutral exposure unless feet to back is only 2 points.  One thing I don’t like about freestyle is I feel like it’s not uncommon for someone to get crotch lifted or chest wrapped for 2, but then end up on top so it’s 2-2.   In this scenario it’d be 4-3 (assuming we’re still doing 3 pt TD’s).

But again, kudos for this idea.  It seems feasible, unlike switching the entire country to folkstyle.

If you want to score it 3 points for exposure instead of 4 so it matches a takedown and then 4 or 5 points for a true feet to back technique, that’s  fine with me. I just want to incentivize action from neutral and clean finishes to shots-and I think this one rule change would do it. It would also make our wrestlers fluid in all freestyle neutral scramble positions.
 

It wouldn’t take away the “control” aspect that people seem to love about folkstyle, and would only be a single rule  that is more additive than anything-because it’s just another way to score points. And also any self-respecting wrestling fan loves throws-and we should try to have rules that encourage risk taking like that. 

Edited Tuesday at 06:39 PM by billyhoyle

[forkemaz]

18 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

The only rule that folkstyle needs to add is to count a neutral exposure as 4 points.

Once you get exposure points, you are considered to be in the top position. If you end up on bottom after the scramble, your opponent gets a 2 point reversal.  

1. The first result would be significantly more neutral throws (because you have the potential to get 4 regardless of the outcome and then backpoints if you keep your oponent in a danger position). I am talking about bringing us back to 80s style wrestling with Randy Lewis, Louden Swain. Folkstyle wrestling today is not the folkstyle wrestling of the 80s, and we have lost a lot because of it! Go watch NCAA matches from the 80s, while Lunatic Fringe is playing in the background, and tell me that the sport we have today remotely compares to that.

2. The second result would be exciting counters by defensive wrestlers in response to shots. This would end the boring folkstyle counters that involve rolling around on your own back to force a stalemate. Instead, we would have just as many scrambles, but they would inevitably lead to more points and more action!

3. The last result is that our athletes would be forced to have significantly better technique. A lot of folkstyle wrestlers shoot in on legs and hold on, either to stall or to try to force stalling calls. We even saw Aaron Brooks try to do this at the end of his semifinal match.  That is not good wrestling! Good wrestling is you shoot, you score.  Like Otoguro's low single.  John Smith invented the low single, but Otoguro's low single was better than any U.S. wrestler that I have seen since Smith. The reason is that folkstyle in its current form does not punish you for failing to finish your shots!

Folkstyle fans, I am not trying to take away your precious top/bottom wrestling or riding time!   Let's just make the sport more exciting by encouraging more throws and better technique!

It doesnt make any sense with how nearfall is scored according to time duration and it rewards slop. No thank you. 

[BloodRound]

FOLKSTYLE NEEDS DAKE BOMBS.

[billyhoyle]

14 minutes ago, forkemaz said:

It doesnt make any sense with how nearfall is scored according to time duration and it rewards slop. No thank you. 

Yes it does. It’s a different move that only scores from neutral.  No need to change the nearfall rule at all. 

Edited Tuesday at 07:14 PM by billyhoyle

[forkemaz]

1 hour ago, billyhoyle said:

Yes it does. It’s a different move that only scores from neutral.  No need to change the nearfall rule at all. 

Nearfall is exposure that requires top control. Neutral danger is exposure that requires some semblance of control in a scramble. You want to make sloppy non control moves from nuetral worth 4 points. Its crazy talk in my opinion. Exposures require control in folk. Id rather near fall be worth up to 6. 1 point per swipe.

[billyhoyle]

18 minutes ago, forkemaz said:

Nearfall is exposure that requires top control. Neutral danger is exposure that requires some semblance of control in a scramble. You want to make sloppy non control moves from nuetral worth 4 points. Its crazy talk in my opinion. Exposures require control in folk. Id rather near fall be worth up to 6. 1 point per swipe.

If they are “sloppy” then why do our elite guys (other than Dake) have trouble executing these moves? I want to create rules from neutral that favor action and exciting moves like throws. You can keep top/bottom wrestling exactly as it is. This change doesn’t ruin folkstyle-it simply adds another layer to it. 

Edited Tuesday at 08:46 PM by billyhoyle

[forkemaz]

2 minutes ago, billyhoyle said:

If they are “sloppy” then why do our elite guys (other than Dake) have trouble executing these moves? I want to create rules from neutral that favor action and exciting moves like throws. You can keep top/bottom wrestling exactly as it is. This change doesn’t ruin folkstyle-it simply adds another layer to it. 

Its sloppy to score. You frequently see 8 point swings in freestyle because they cant decide whose move it was. Its sloppy because it doesnt end in control which is the entire point of wrestling. Its like slop on the pool table. Call your shot or it doesnt count, same for wrestling get the takedown or its nothing.

[Caveira]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:20 AM, billyhoyle said:

Yes, based on who initiated the “action”. I think we would see just as many leg attacks because we do see them in freestyle. But in our training, it would force us to actually practice good finishes because the attacking wrestler will have finish the shot and can’t rely on scrambling out of a counter. 
 

Seeing the 65 kg Japanese wrestler execute what I consider to be the cleanest low single/finish of the year is the perfect example of this. Taylor’s style of attacking/finishing is another-it played up perfectly in free.  Why did JB transition immediately to free? Because his double had an extremely clean finish. Brooks shooting and hanging onto the leg as a stall technique would have worked in folk, but didn’t in free. 

Folkstyle scrambling is very entertaining.   

[Richard Mann]

Entertainment rankings
 

1. Folkstyle
2. Freestyle
3. Judo
4. Greco