NCAA Men’s Freestyle Wrestling

[Wrestleknownothing]

10 minutes ago, ionel said:

You can't be serious!  Maybe you need a better understanding of why we have this system.

 

One of their best in a long time.

[Jason Bryant]

I was in general agreement with you until the end. The imperial system is much, much worse than the metric system

Base 10 system. Makes sense across weights and measures -
but it’s not a hill I’m going to die on.

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, Jason Bryant said:

Base 10 system. Makes sense across weights and measures -
but it’s not a hill I’m going to die on.

Most prob didn't realize Imperial is base 10.

The acre is a unit of land area used in the British imperial and the United States customary systems. It is traditionally defined as the area of one chain by one furlong (66 by 660 feet), which is exactly equal to 10 square chains, 1⁄640 of a square mile, 4,840 square yards, or 43,560 square feet.

A chain is a larger unit of length measuring 100 links, or 4 rods.

Edited August 28 by ionel

[alex1fly]

On 8/25/2024 at 1:57 PM, ionel said:

We need more 10 to 15 second matches in college.  Will fans demand a refund if 10 of these in a row?

 

Good example here of why leg lace techs are the goofiest thing to me about freestyle. Mocco still gets points even when his opponent is basically getting spun around while upright, rather than getting his back exposed. Not that my opinion matters but leg laces appear to be the easiest way to turn an opponent. I certainly see more leg laces by quantity than guts or literally any turn in folkstyle. This is where I'm curious what athletes think about it rather than assuming I know from watching.

[Jim L]

6 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:

Base 10 system. Makes sense across weights and measures -
but it’s not a hill I’m going to die on.

Its actually more than just weights and measures, lots of US standards are weird and arcane while metric (ISO) standard almost always make intuitive sense. Really hard to make any coherent argument for the Imperial system besides MERICA!!

[Jim L]

4 hours ago, alex1fly said:

Good example here of why leg lace techs are the goofiest thing to me about freestyle. Mocco still gets points even when his opponent is basically getting spun around while upright, rather than getting his back exposed. Not that my opinion matters but leg laces appear to be the easiest way to turn an opponent. I certainly see more leg laces by quantity than guts or literally any turn in folkstyle. This is where I'm curious what athletes think about it rather than assuming I know from watching.

There was a time when hand to hand turns where one point and turns with true back exposure was two points.

Seems logical that if you are sitting up going hand to hand and actually not exposing your back there should not be points being scored

[gimpeltf]

55 minutes ago, Jim L said:

There was a time when hand to hand turns where one point and turns with true back exposure was two points.

Yes and no. When I reffed (late 70s early 80s) I definitely remember the 1 pt hand to hand. But I also remember in my learning stages questioning the muckety-mucks about why we'd give 2 when the kid was spun through but was sitting up.

[ionel]

7 hours ago, alex1fly said:

Good example here of why leg lace techs are the goofiest thing to me about freestyle. Mocco still gets points even when his opponent is basically getting spun around while upright, rather than getting his back exposed. Not that my opinion matters but leg laces appear to be the easiest way to turn an opponent. I certainly see more leg laces by quantity than guts or literally any turn in folkstyle. This is where I'm curious what athletes think about it rather than assuming I know from watching.

And if you watch the video again you can see how a non freestyle fan might think the opponent is intentionally hipping over hands to hands to roll Mocco thru for repeat exposure.  Prove me wrong.  

[forkemaz]

On 8/27/2024 at 7:54 PM, Jason Bryant said:

All valid points from a viewing perspective, but I think the overall flaw is when watching, we tend to watch freestyle wanting it to be folkstyle. Expecting takedowns to be the same, such as a quad pod. Freestyle is about exposing your back, not about control, which is a crucial element to American folkstyle. it’s the same sport, but to use Olympic parlance, a different discipline.

From a viewer perspective, I find riding time to be the biggest detriment to the uneducated sports fan in trying to get them to watch college wrestling. No style is perfect, I just wish more people could appreciate the styles for what they are vs. what they’re not. We don’t do the metric system here but it doesn’t mean it’s worse … imperial is just what we are used to.

I certainly cant argue with that. Im veiwing things through an American lense because im American and I like our style best. I can argue why but that wasnt really your point. I am most concerned with American viewership and sport growth. I think folkstyle is more intutitive to the average American sports fan. I dont think freestylr goes about prioritizing exposure in the best way but thats a different argument. Take a shot (of water if you like) every time i say American in this post.

[alex1fly]

16 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Yes and no. When I reffed (late 70s early 80s) I definitely remember the 1 pt hand to hand. But I also remember in my learning stages questioning the muckety-mucks about why we'd give 2 when the kid was spun through but was sitting up.

Makes some sense. Leg laces are still showing some control. But exposing your opponents back is certainly harder than hand to hand spins. Thanks for putting terms to the different results. 

[Jim L]

18 hours ago, gimpeltf said:

Yes and no. When I reffed (late 70s early 80s) I definitely remember the 1 pt hand to hand. But I also remember in my learning stages questioning the muckety-mucks about why we'd give 2 when the kid was spun through but was sitting up.

Wasn't part of the controversy in Kurt Angle's gold medal match that his opponent could have got two points for a turn where the ref ruled it hand to hand, but his elbow possibly touch so it should have been 2 points instead the 1 that was scored?

 

[gimpeltf]

1 hour ago, Jim L said:

Wasn't part of the controversy in Kurt Angle's gold medal match that his opponent could have got two points for a turn where the ref ruled it hand to hand, but his elbow possibly touch so it should have been 2 points instead the 1 that was scored?

Hmmm... That does sound vaguely familiar. As I recall there was also a controversy over the number of shots taken and when. I seem to remember when I saw the bout sheet after the match (I was at the head table) and seeing how the refs marked shots taken.