Reversal

[Royalfan]

Am I the only that thinks reversal should be worth 3? I just don’t get the logic of current rule.  If you get control with a takedown it is 3 but if you get control in an even worse position it is two.  May wrestling needs to matter imo.  Too many matches I see a guy doing a great job to get the reversal only for it not to matter when the other gets an escape.  When you gain control from bottom it should be the same as gaining control from neutral.  Can people that disagree help me understand.  Thanks!

[BruceyB]

1 hour ago, Royalfan said:

Am I the only that thinks reversal should be worth 3? I just don’t get the logic of current rule.  If you get control with a takedown it is 3 but if you get control in an even worse position it is two.  May wrestling needs to matter imo.  Too many matches I see a guy doing a great job to get the reversal only for it not to matter when the other gets an escape.  When you gain control from bottom it should be the same as gaining control from neutral.  Can people that disagree help me understand.  Thanks!

I want to start by clarifying that I don't have a hard stance as I see an argument for both. I do lean towards keeping it at two points though, but I wouldn't have any strong feelings if it went to 3.

This is the thing with the bottom position, you either were put into the bottom position by being taken down, or you chose to be in the bottom position. 

If you are in the bottom position from being taken down, you are given the opportunity to score points from a defensive position (ie: you cannot score an escape without being taken down).

Likewise, with reversals, you cannot score a reversal unless you are in a defensive position. If I take you down, and you reverse me, you were only capable of scoring a reversal because I took you down in the first place. Why should you get the same amount of points as me for reversing me out of the position I put you in? If I didn't take you down, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to score from bottom. This is where it is obviously subjective in what you think should be most heavily rewarded. I think that gaining control from a neutral position should be rewarded more heavily than being able to reverse the position you were forced into after being taken down.

Additionally, if you choose bottom, you are choosing bottom knowing that your scoring possibilities are either one point for an escape or two points for a reversal. You can choose neutral with the opportunity to score 3 points, so why does anyone choose bottom? It is because the bottom wrestler believes they are more likely to accumulate more points starting the period in the bottom position than in neutral.

I am of the camp that believes scoring a takedown should be most heavily rewarded, and that a reversal, which is only possible to earn by being taken down, or putting yourself in the bottom position should not be equally rewarded.

I also understand the argument for emphasizing mat wrestling where being sloppy on top and getting reversed should be more penalized. If you're afraid of getting reversed, cut them instantly and don't play around in the position. 

I just believe in the current era of college wrestling with the leg passes, far ankle scrambles, Churella positions, etc. It is so hard to get in on someone and score without it being stalemated, that securing a takedown should be rewarded with more points than reversing a position that you were forced into/chose to be in.

Anyway, I know that was long, but I hope I was able to make the argument against a 3 point reversal understood.

Edited 5 hours ago by BruceyB
typo

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

4 hours ago, BruceyB said:

I want to start by clarifying that I don't have a hard stance as I see an argument for both. I do lean towards keeping it at two points though, but I wouldn't have any strong feelings if it went to 3.

This is the thing with the bottom position, you either were put into the bottom position by being taken down, or you chose to be in the bottom position. 

If you are in the bottom position from being taken down, you are given the opportunity to score points from a defensive position (ie: you cannot score an escape without being taken down).

Likewise, with reversals, you cannot score a reversal unless you are in a defensive position. If I take you down, and you reverse me, you were only capable of scoring a reversal because I took you down in the first place. Why should you get the same amount of points as me for reversing me out of the position I put you in? If I didn't take you down, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to score from bottom. This is where it is obviously subjective in what you think should be most heavily rewarded. I think that gaining control from a neutral position should be rewarded more heavily than being able to reverse the position you were forced into after being taken down.

Additionally, if you choose bottom, you are choosing bottom knowing that your scoring possibilities are either one point for an escape or two points for a reversal. You can choose neutral with the opportunity to score 3 points, so why does anyone choose bottom? It is because the bottom wrestler believes they are more likely to accumulate more points starting the period in the bottom position than in neutral.

I am of the camp that believes scoring a takedown should be most heavily rewarded, and that a reversal, which is only possible to earn by being taken down, or putting yourself in the bottom position should not be equally rewarded.

I also understand the argument for emphasizing mat wrestling where being sloppy on top and getting reversed should be more penalized. If you're afraid of getting reversed, cut them instantly and don't play around in the position. 

I just believe in the current era of college wrestling with the leg passes, far ankle scrambles, Churella positions, etc. It is so hard to get in on someone and score without it being stalemated, that securing a takedown should be rewarded with more points than reversing a position that you were forced into/chose to be in.

Anyway, I know that was long, but I hope I was able to make the argument against a 3 point reversal understood.

All of that.  Most reversals are also largely the fault of the top man.

Edited 1 hour ago by Interviewed_at_Weehawken

[Pinnacle]

Wrestler A gets 4 Tds

Wrestler B gets no Tds but gets 4 escapes

They both escape from bottom choice

Match is tied

Seems to disincentivize earning tds

[jchapman]

4 hours ago, BruceyB said:

I want to start by clarifying that I don't have a hard stance as I see an argument for both. I do lean towards keeping it at two points though, but I wouldn't have any strong feelings if it went to 3.

This is the thing with the bottom position, you either were put into the bottom position by being taken down, or you chose to be in the bottom position. 

If you are in the bottom position from being taken down, you are given the opportunity to score points from a defensive position (ie: you cannot score an escape without being taken down).

Likewise, with reversals, you cannot score a reversal unless you are in a defensive position. If I take you down, and you reverse me, you were only capable of scoring a reversal because I took you down in the first place. Why should you get the same amount of points as me for reversing me out of the position I put you in? If I didn't take you down, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to score from bottom. This is where it is obviously subjective in what you think should be most heavily rewarded. I think that gaining control from a neutral position should be rewarded more heavily than being able to reverse the position you were forced into after being taken down.

Additionally, if you choose bottom, you are choosing bottom knowing that your scoring possibilities are either one point for an escape or two points for a reversal. You can choose neutral with the opportunity to score 3 points, so why does anyone choose bottom? It is because the bottom wrestler believes they are more likely to accumulate more points starting the period in the bottom position than in neutral.

I am of the camp that believes scoring a takedown should be most heavily rewarded, and that a reversal, which is only possible to earn by being taken down, or putting yourself in the bottom position should not be equally rewarded.

I also understand the argument for emphasizing mat wrestling where being sloppy on top and getting reversed should be more penalized. If you're afraid of getting reversed, cut them instantly and don't play around in the position. 

I just believe in the current era of college wrestling with the leg passes, far ankle scrambles, Churella positions, etc. It is so hard to get in on someone and score without it being stalemated, that securing a takedown should be rewarded with more points than reversing a position that you were forced into/chose to be in.

Anyway, I know that was long, but I hope I was able to make the argument against a 3 point reversal understood.

If Wrestler A choses top to start a period, would you support awarding 3 points to Wrestler B for a reversal?

[Caveira]

I vote for stop changing the darn scoring it was fine before.   Go back to the older method.    The “action” you’re trying to create isn’t there.  If you turned the volume and hid the score you can’t tell the diff in a match now vs right before the change.  

[666]

I saw a guy get a reversal a couple days ago and thought the same thing myself. If takedowns are going to be 3 points, so should reversals. Also, and most of you guys will hate this, I think a point should be awarded for every minute of riding time, with the proviso that the top man is trying for turns. 

Edited 6 minutes ago by 666

[666]

35 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I vote for stop changing the darn scoring it was fine before.   Go back to the older method.    The “action” you’re trying to create isn’t there.  If you turned the volume and hid the score you can’t tell the diff in a match now vs right before the change.  

Is that you, Grandpa?? 

Just kidding. I like the 3 point takedown, I think it's done a lot to incentivize guys towards more aggressive work in neutral. Do you dislike the 3 point takedown?