An idea - someone winning from start

[Dark Energy]

Quick thought - figure get reactions.  
 

In chess, one player has the white pieces, another black.  Some feel there is a slight advantage to player with white pieces since they move first.

Idea - random assignment to red or blue wrestler as basically having criteria to start the match.  Now, from very start, someone is winning, someone is losing.  
 

Objective - promote scoring, avoid artificial passivity / shot clock moments.  
 

Just an idea - curious on reactions.

[Ragu]

First move is a slight advantage. According to ChatGPT, at the highest level, white wins 55% of the time. I figure that say red gets a point right away or just has criteria to start. I think that 55% goes up to more like 60-70%

[Dark Energy]

If your hypothesis is correct, then very bad idea.  Not sure I agree it is that much  of an advantage.  But don’t know.

[Ragu]

Tournament organizers should once and a while create unique rule sets for that single tournament to test some theories out

[Eagle26]

10 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

Quick thought - figure get reactions.  
 

In chess, one player has the white pieces, another black.  Some feel there is a slight advantage to player with white pieces since they move first.

Idea - random assignment to red or blue wrestler as basically having criteria to start the match.  Now, from very start, someone is winning, someone is losing.  
 

Objective - promote scoring, avoid artificial passivity / shot clock moments.  
 

Just an idea - curious on reactions.

Interesting idea, but I’m not sure if it makes a difference if you play it out. If red is winning 0-0 on criteria, someone still needs to go on the shot clock before the end of the first. So a 0-0 criteria lead does nothing. If you start with someone randomly up by a point, I think it is too much of an unfair advantage. 

[Dark Energy]

Thanks for interacting on this and thinking about it.
 

I’m not sure someone needs to go on shot clock by end of first.  Why do you think it is needed?

Worst case, match finishes 0-0 and the winner is the one that got criteria at start of match.  Kinda like 1-1 criteria win.

I agree that a full point to start match would be too much of an advantage.  But a full point is given for the forced 1st period shot clock situation.  Which, perhaps is worse?

Now, the optics of a 0-0 win suck.  I get it.  But not really different from a 1-1 win where both points were shot clock points.  Both are creating arbitrary winners.

I’m thinking it is unlikely a match would go 0-0 distance.  Someone likely to be called for passivity in that situation.  But, it could happen.

 

[Window12]

There are occasional matches when an ultra passive wrestler loses 2 shot clock points at 2-0 which but actually this would be the correct result as the more passive wrestler would have perhaps lost by more than that if they chose a more attacking strategy. There are a couple of Taha Akgul matches against Zare where Akgul lost 2 shot clock points in the match  but that was a fair outcome as if he had chosen the direct attacking and less defensive approach the loss would have been with a higher difference. The shot clock rule correctly help determine the winner. With random assignments of the criteria these situations would be less fairly determined and may promote more defensive approach .

 

[Dark Energy]

True - I can see this logic.  But I think the more defensive person would still be at risk of being put on a shot clock. 
 

I suppose the concern is that the better wrestler (Zare) would lose.  But I think the result would have ended up the same … 2-0 Zare.

[Gene Mills Fan]

Why punish an aggressive wrestler with a coin flip?   First earned point is good criteria IMO.

[Eagle26]

On 4/3/2025 at 10:24 PM, Dark Energy said:

Thanks for interacting on this and thinking about it.
 

I’m not sure someone needs to go on shot clock by end of first.  Why do you think it is needed?

Worst case, match finishes 0-0 and the winner is the one that got criteria at start of match.  Kinda like 1-1 criteria win.

I agree that a full point to start match would be too much of an advantage.  But a full point is given for the forced 1st period shot clock situation.  Which, perhaps is worse?

Now, the optics of a 0-0 win suck.  I get it.  But not really different from a 1-1 win where both points were shot clock points.  Both are creating arbitrary winners.

I’m thinking it is unlikely a match would go 0-0 distance.  Someone likely to be called for passivity in that situation.  But, it could happen.

 

I think you basically said it. There’s not much difference in creating action or getting the right winner in the idea you proposed vs what’s currently being done. The biggest difference would probably be the optics of not having a point on the score board and a winner randomly being chosen. Currently, even if the ref randomly picks who gets on the shot clock, they at least have a chance to avoid that point going to the other guy. It at least looks more fair. Why change it then? And for what it’s worth, I think it’s great to keep looking at ideas for rule changes… this just happens to be one that I think freestyle already has a pretty good system for.  

[Dark Energy]

All fair points.