This explains a lot (lack of stall calls on top)

[alex1fly]

 

22 hours ago, Jim L said:

The stall calls I see seem unrelated to stalling. 90% of the time if someone is stalling with with a  1point lead with 1 minute or so left in the 3rd, the ref will call the first stall call with about 15 seconds left and then if they don't absolutely flee they will not get a second stall.

Stalling on the mat seems arbitrary as well. Too many times I see a bottom guy getting dominated and not able to do anything and get dinged for stalling. This brings back flashbacks for me as I was not best at getting out of the bottom and remember when I got hit for stalling and wanting to yell at the ref "Cant you see I'm trying.. Its just not working"

I see this too. Don't understand why there aren't more double stall calls.

 

And don't get me started on the out-of-bounds stall calls. What gets called as stalling vs action is arbitrary AF. 

[pmilk]

Wrestling is about control. Control the tie-ups, control his wrists, control his hips, control his head, control his elbows, control his ankles, etc. Mat wrestling and especially the issue of stalling always intrigues me. It was very clear to me that my responsibility on bottom was to control that position, regardless of the top man’s tactics. Conversely, on top, it was my responsibility to control that position regardless of my opponent’s tactics to prevent it.  Pretty much all of wrestling is predicated on stimulus/response mechanisms that lead to CONTROL. 

Just like neutral, there are things that one can do on bottom to create a response/reaction that will allow him to set the top guy up for an escape/reversal…there are stimuli that one can apply to set the bottom guy up so that he will continually walk into traps that won’t allow him to escape, or it may allow pinning combinations. CONTROL.

But, folks are nuts to think/expect that everyone should be working for a pin. What for? Why can’t he work just to win if he’s wrestling within the parameters of the rules? Ok, so throw a half here, reach for a cradle there, throw some legs, do a claw, spiral, catch a wrist and grunt a few times like you’re tying to tilt him…obligation met “working for a fall,” match ends, you win. None of those options are available when you have a guy on bottom who is very well educated on how to get out and hell bent on doing it. You have to hate being on bottom.    

Really good wrestlers are savvy enough to stay out of pinning combos, so the best you can do is to beat them with superior strategy and “smart stalling.” Like it or not, that’s what smart wrestlers can do, they CONTROL the rules and "smart stall."

When you are in a tight match with a quality opponent, you just cannot, or should not, take foolish risks and jeopardize your lead. Know the rules and how to work them to your advantage. 

I still maintain that awarding 1pt for every 30 seconds of RT will eliminate a whole lot of issues…particularly stalling from top/bottom.

[ionel]

If both wrestlers are stalling, should we really care?  Its kindve just on them correct? 

[alex1fly]

More riding time points available would mean more stalemate calls with neither top or bottom wrestler progressing. 

Edited January 12 by alex1fly

[pmilk]

alex...could you kindly explain to me how more points for RT would equate to increased stalemates and no progression on top or bottom? thanks. Pat

[alex1fly]

15 minutes ago, pmilk said:

alex...could you kindly explain to me how more points for RT would equate to increased stalemates and no progression on top or bottom? thanks. Pat

Can you explain how it would lead to more action?

[pmilk]

nice dodge...or maybe you're just stalling....but not smartly. I will gladly explain my logic after I read yours. 

[alex1fly]

33 minutes ago, pmilk said:

nice dodge...or maybe you're just stalling....but not smartly. I will gladly explain my logic after I read yours. 

Bro chill I am genuinely interested in your explanation. I’ve never heard anybody propose that multiple riding time points would increase action. 

Edited January 13 by alex1fly

[1032004]

1 hour ago, alex1fly said:

Bro chill I am genuinely interested in your explanation. I’ve never heard anybody propose that multiple riding time points would increase action. 

Yeah, his whole argument is basically that riding just to ride isn’t stalling…which kinda by definition is not action…

[alex1fly]

13 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yeah, his whole argument is basically that riding just to ride isn’t stalling…which kinda by definition is not action…

That’s how I read it too. But curious to hear it out if he cares to explain. 

[pmilk]

alex, first of all, you responded with an immediate assessment of the RT proposal, which indicated to me that you obviously had a well thought out logic that you could expound on to explain your presumptions, which I would happily respond back to.  Secondly, starting a sentence with "Bro chill" does not lend itself to having a productive dialogue...at least to me it doesn't.  Because I may have a different perspective certainly doesn't mean I am somehow "out of control," " angry," or "losing it," (quotes are mine) which "Bro chill" implies. I would suggest that you and 103 go back and read my other posts regarding riding/stalling, and if those aren't comprehensive enough I will be happy to present more detail. So with that, I look forward to your position that it would "mean more stalemate calls with neither top or bottom wrestler progressing," since most of my position is already on here.  Pat...

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, pmilk said:

alex, first of all, you responded with an immediate assessment of the RT proposal, which indicated to me that you obviously had a well thought out logic that you could expound on to explain your presumptions, which I would happily respond back to.  Secondly, starting a sentence with "Bro chill" does not lend itself to having a productive dialogue...at least to me it doesn't.  Because I may have a different perspective certainly doesn't mean I am somehow "out of control," " angry," or "losing it," (quotes are mine) which "Bro chill" implies. I would suggest that you and 103 go back and read my other posts regarding riding/stalling, and if those aren't comprehensive enough I will be happy to present more detail. So with that, I look forward to your position that it would "mean more stalemate calls with neither top or bottom wrestler progressing," since most of my position is already on here.  Pat...

Do you think I inaccurately summarized your position - “riding just to ride isn’t stalling”?

[alex1fly]

2 hours ago, pmilk said:

alex, first of all, you responded with an immediate assessment of the RT proposal, which indicated to me that you obviously had a well thought out logic that you could expound on to explain your presumptions, which I would happily respond back to.  Secondly, starting a sentence with "Bro chill" does not lend itself to having a productive dialogue...at least to me it doesn't.  Because I may have a different perspective certainly doesn't mean I am somehow "out of control," " angry," or "losing it," (quotes are mine) which "Bro chill" implies. I would suggest that you and 103 go back and read my other posts regarding riding/stalling, and if those aren't comprehensive enough I will be happy to present more detail. So with that, I look forward to your position that it would "mean more stalemate calls with neither top or bottom wrestler progressing," since most of my position is already on here.  Pat...

I read your post above but I don’t see how it would lead to more action. That’s what I’ve been asking you to explain. If that is your explanation that’s fine, I just don’t see it. 

More riding time points means a strong top wrestler is going for boots, spiral, ankle ride, or similar every time so they can sit on top. There will be no action because the guy can’t get out. Currently that’s called as stalling for no action. Without stalling it’s a stalemate for no action. Several holds are just hard to get out of regardless of score or determination. 

In your scenario, Wrestler 1 gets an early 1st period TD, 3-0. They ride for 150 seconds, 8-0. Second period they choose top, stall their way to a ride out, it’s 12-0 to start the third period with one takedown in the match.

More points, yes. But significantly changes the focus of folkstyle from takedowns to riding. And I don’t see how it would increase action overall. 

Edited January 13 by alex1fly

[pmilk]

First, how many years do you think they have been trying to address

“stalling?”

Next, why can’t he get out? I was taught how to prevent legs, get out of legs, and neutralize legs, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent a spiral and get out of a spiral, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent my ankles being caught and if they did, I was taught how to counter and get out of ankle rides, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent leg laces and I learned how to get out of them, so what’s preventing him from doing the same? And not just get out…but score points. In your scenario, how do you “stall your way to a ride out” without getting called for stalling?

If you read the details of my posts on this subject you should discover that I don't encourage “doing nothing” on top. There are change offs and lots of movement while using leverages, torques, imbalances, and wt to keep him occupied, make him tired, frustrate him, run the clock, acquire a pt for RT, and he’s not scoring. And you’re keeping the ref happy. That’s not stalling. That’s just being smart about using the rules to one’s advantage. From 8^th grade thru college, I have never, ever been warned for stalling on top or bottom. Wrestling is a thinking man’s game. 

Furthermore, if I knew someone could gain a point for every 30 seconds of RT, I’m doing two things: 1) learn how to get out effectively/efficiently and, 2) Learn how to control the top position. To me, this should equate to more active mat wrestling and more attempts for TD’s to put one in position to acquire the RT points and then to, consequently, get off bottom to limit RT points.

Right now top man can “grasp” an ankle for 5 seconds. The bottom man does not have to react or wrestle any further because the rule will help him free his ankle.  Hypothetical: Let’s pretend the rule was 15 or even 30 seconds on an ankle for each grasp. Do you really think the guy on bottom would still be compelled to do absolutely nothing for 15/30 seconds waiting for the time limit to kick in for him to let go while RT accumulates? I don’t. For some reason, you and others, are equating control to stalling and doing absolutely nothing at all. “Looking busy” is an art…people do it in jobs all the time. The one’s that get fired didn’t learn those techniques. Same in wrestling…do it well and no one bothers you…do a lousy job and you get dinged. 

I keep reading that the rules state you “must be working for a fall.” Tilts are not working for a fall…tilts are working for a tilt, so technically, to me, that could be construed as stalling…who gets pinned with a tilt?

I believe my hypo brings mat wrestling back into demonstrating a comprehensive array of skill sets. Freestyle is basically TD’s and that’s seems where we are headed. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, pmilk said:

 

First, how many years do you think they have been trying to address

“stalling?”

Next, why can’t he get out? I was taught how to prevent legs, get out of legs, and neutralize legs, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent a spiral and get out of a spiral, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent my ankles being caught and if they did, I was taught how to counter and get out of ankle rides, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent leg laces and I learned how to get out of them, so what’s preventing him from doing the same? And not just get out…but score points. In your scenario, how do you “stall your way to a ride out” without getting called for stalling?

If you read the details of my posts on this subject you should discover that I don't encourage “doing nothing” on top. There are change offs and lots of movement while using leverages, torques, imbalances, and wt to keep him occupied, make him tired, frustrate him, run the clock, acquire a pt for RT, and he’s not scoring. And you’re keeping the ref happy. That’s not stalling. That’s just being smart about using the rules to one’s advantage. From 8^th grade thru college, I have never, ever been warned for stalling on top or bottom. Wrestling is a thinking man’s game. 

Furthermore, if I knew someone could gain a point for every 30 seconds of RT, I’m doing two things: 1) learn how to get out effectively/efficiently and, 2) Learn how to control the top position. To me, this should equate to more active mat wrestling and more attempts for TD’s to put one in position to acquire the RT points and then to, consequently, get off bottom to limit RT points.

Right now top man can “grasp” an ankle for 5 seconds. The bottom man does not have to react or wrestle any further because the rule will help him free his ankle.  Hypothetical: Let’s pretend the rule was 15 or even 30 seconds on an ankle for each grasp. Do you really think the guy on bottom would still be compelled to do absolutely nothing for 15/30 seconds waiting for the time limit to kick in for him to let go while RT accumulates? I don’t. For some reason, you and others, are equating control to stalling and doing absolutely nothing at all. “Looking busy” is an art…people do it in jobs all the time. The one’s that get fired didn’t learn those techniques. Same in wrestling…do it well and no one bothers you…do a lousy job and you get dinged. 

I keep reading that the rules state you “must be working for a fall.” Tilts are not working for a fall…tilts are working for a tilt, so technically, to me, that could be construed as stalling…who gets pinned with a tilt?

I believe my hypo brings mat wrestling back into demonstrating a comprehensive array of skill sets. Freestyle is basically TD’s and that’s seems where we are headed. 

It’s hard to stall on top unless the guy on bottom is stalling, too.

[alex1fly]

On 1/13/2024 at 9:27 AM, pmilk said:

 

First, how many years do you think they have been trying to address

“stalling?”

Next, why can’t he get out? I was taught how to prevent legs, get out of legs, and neutralize legs, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent a spiral and get out of a spiral, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent my ankles being caught and if they did, I was taught how to counter and get out of ankle rides, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent leg laces and I learned how to get out of them, so what’s preventing him from doing the same? And not just get out…but score points. In your scenario, how do you “stall your way to a ride out” without getting called for stalling?

If you read the details of my posts on this subject you should discover that I don't encourage “doing nothing” on top. There are change offs and lots of movement while using leverages, torques, imbalances, and wt to keep him occupied, make him tired, frustrate him, run the clock, acquire a pt for RT, and he’s not scoring. And you’re keeping the ref happy. That’s not stalling. That’s just being smart about using the rules to one’s advantage. From 8^th grade thru college, I have never, ever been warned for stalling on top or bottom. Wrestling is a thinking man’s game. 

Furthermore, if I knew someone could gain a point for every 30 seconds of RT, I’m doing two things: 1) learn how to get out effectively/efficiently and, 2) Learn how to control the top position. To me, this should equate to more active mat wrestling and more attempts for TD’s to put one in position to acquire the RT points and then to, consequently, get off bottom to limit RT points.

Right now top man can “grasp” an ankle for 5 seconds. The bottom man does not have to react or wrestle any further because the rule will help him free his ankle.  Hypothetical: Let’s pretend the rule was 15 or even 30 seconds on an ankle for each grasp. Do you really think the guy on bottom would still be compelled to do absolutely nothing for 15/30 seconds waiting for the time limit to kick in for him to let go while RT accumulates? I don’t. For some reason, you and others, are equating control to stalling and doing absolutely nothing at all. “Looking busy” is an art…people do it in jobs all the time. The one’s that get fired didn’t learn those techniques. Same in wrestling…do it well and no one bothers you…do a lousy job and you get dinged. 

I keep reading that the rules state you “must be working for a fall.” Tilts are not working for a fall…tilts are working for a tilt, so technically, to me, that could be construed as stalling…who gets pinned with a tilt?

I believe my hypo brings mat wrestling back into demonstrating a comprehensive array of skill sets. Freestyle is basically TD’s and that’s seems where we are headed. 

A lot of great points here. Maybe it's pessimistic of me to picture everybody working for something like double boots and sitting on top. It's what I would do but maybe folks would get better at defending it. It is interesting though how mat wrestling is what gives folkstyle its signature style but there's considerable disagreement about how mat wrestling should go.

I do maintain that stall calls are still amazingly arbitrary. If neither wrestler shoots for a whole period, why are there no double stall calls? If one wrestler takes a bunch of half-hearted shots that would never land, why does their opponent get a stall call? Why is "fleeing the mat" a stall call, but "taking a shot that will clearly land you both out of bounds" not?

 

Some other random ideas on rule changes for mat wrestling. Just for fun - not a serious advocate of any of them.

1. Give more than 1 RT point, but let bottom wrestler up after X amount of time.

2. Give more than 1 RT point, but change the starting position of top/bottom wrestler.

3. Allow for 1 nearfall point.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

4 minutes ago, alex1fly said:

A lot of great points here. Maybe it's pessimistic of me to picture everybody working for something like double boots and sitting on top. It's what I would do but maybe folks would get better at defending it. It is interesting though how mat wrestling is what gives folkstyle its signature style but there's considerable disagreement about how mat wrestling should go.

I do maintain that stall calls are still amazingly arbitrary. If neither wrestler shoots for a whole period, why are there no double stall calls? If one wrestler takes a bunch of half-hearted shots that would never land, why does their opponent get a stall call? Why is "fleeing the mat" a stall call, but "taking a shot that will clearly land you both out of bounds" not?

 

Some other random ideas on rule changes for mat wrestling. Just for fun - not a serious advocate of any of them.

1. Give more than 1 RT point, but let bottom wrestler up after X amount of time.

2. Give more than 1 RT point, but change the starting position of top/bottom wrestler.

3. Allow for 1 nearfall point.

 

I too find the stalling calls to be very inconsistent. The inconsistency seems to be not calling stalling, rather than calling it too often. Take Real Woods yesterday against VomBaur. After taking a 4-1 lead, Woods was in reverse the entire second period. He was clearly in defend his lead mode. Back up or move sideways every time VomBaur attempted to make contact. It was an effective stalling technique because it worked, but it was stalling.

[1032004]

10 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I too find the stalling calls to be very inconsistent. The inconsistency seems to be not calling stalling, rather than calling it too often. Take Real Woods yesterday against VomBaur. After taking a 4-1 lead, Woods was in reverse the entire second period. He was clearly in defend his lead mode. Back up or move sideways every time VomBaur attempted to make contact. It was an effective stalling technique because it worked, but it was stalling.

Make up call from the undeserved stalling against Hardy?

[1032004]

On 1/13/2024 at 1:11 PM, Offthemat said:

It’s hard to stall on top unless the guy on bottom is stalling, too.

False, especially with the new rule

[WrestlingRash]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:27 AM, mspart said:

Stalling on top guy should be "not trying to score or improve their position".   Not trying for the fall should be in the list of stalling.   Improving your position is getting the bottom guy to his back.   From there it is to pin.  This does not incentivize the top wrestler to do anything other than stay in the middle and STALL. 

mspart

too subjective. if you are trying to get the riding time point, you are, by definition, trying to score. there is no such thing as stalling on top. its obvious. 

[alex1fly]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I too find the stalling calls to be very inconsistent. The inconsistency seems to be not calling stalling, rather than calling it too often. Take Real Woods yesterday against VomBaur. After taking a 4-1 lead, Woods was in reverse the entire second period. He was clearly in defend his lead mode. Back up or move sideways every time VomBaur attempted to make contact. It was an effective stalling technique because it worked, but it was stalling.

And he wasn't called for stalling? That stuff is maddeningly inconsistent. I've found myself muttering to the tv during matches "better do something so you don't get a stall call".

Should there be a "take x amount of shots per minute" metric or something to measure it? Perhaps two refs have to agree on a stall call? Or maybe you get two stall calls instead of one before they start giving your opponent points?

[Wrestleknownothing]

45 minutes ago, alex1fly said:

And he wasn't called for stalling? That stuff is maddeningly inconsistent. I've found myself muttering to the tv during matches "better do something so you don't get a stall call".

Should there be a "take x amount of shots per minute" metric or something to measure it? Perhaps two refs have to agree on a stall call? Or maybe you get two stall calls instead of one before they start giving your opponent points?

You could certainly hear the Minnesota coaches calling for it.

 

 

[1032004]

15 hours ago, WrestlingRash said:

too subjective. if you are trying to get the riding time point, you are, by definition, trying to score. there is no such thing as stalling on top. its obvious. 

Is it bad I can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

[WrestlingRash]

6 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Is it bad I can’t tell if this is sarcasm?

no sarcasm. stalling can be defined as: not trying to score. the riding time point means that logically the top guy is always trying to score because they are earning riding time. if there was no riding time point, you would then have a case that it is possible to stall from top position. unless that happens, and it is never going to happen, its quite literally impossible to stall on top. 

[1032004]

5 hours ago, WrestlingRash said:

no sarcasm. stalling can be defined as: not trying to score. 

Not this year