The 3-Point Takedown: Friend or Foe?

[Wrestleknownothing]

Thanks to the data provided by @cowcards we can now look at the three point takedown through a new lens.

Lights, Camera, ACTION

At the time the three pointer was approved the rationale was twofold:

1. The extra point rewards offensive actions and risk-taking.
2. It creates a more appropriate point differential between takedowns and escapes.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-3-point-takedown-approved-in-wrestling.aspx

Let's examine the first belief. Has there been more offensive action and risk taking? Well, with only two years worth of data it might be too soon to tell, but so far it looks like the answer is a resounding no. Not only has there not been more, there actually appears to be less.

Survey Says....

From 1993 to 2023, when all takedowns were worth 2 points and criteria was removed as a tiebreaker, for non-overtime matches ending in decision, or major decision (matches that go the full time and are not tech falls), the most common score was 3-2 (5.3%). With the advent of the three point takedown in the last two years, the most common score for these matches was 4-2 (7.9%).

One takedown matches have increased in frequency (+49%) even after they were already the most common outcome.

And sadly, during the last two tournaments the ninth most common score for non-TF, full-time matches was 2-0. That's right. A match with zero takedowns has entered the top 10 for full-time score since the rule change. For reference, 2-0 used to be the 27th most common score.

So?

One way to interpret this is that once the first takedown is secured wrestlers get into the mindset of keeping what they have rather than taking risk to try to add to it. The opposite of the stated goal.

A less direct measure is to look at the percentage of matches that go to OT.

• 1993 - 2023: 8%
• 2024 - 2025: 10%.

Not a huge leap given the size of the data for the 3-point era, but suggestive nonetheless. 

Taken together you would be hard pressed to say they 3-point takedown has succeeded in rewarding risk-taking. 

[Coastal]

All the three point takedown has done is give room for an extra stall call in the third period.

 

A late first period takedown and ride out, an escape with no riding time and most wrestlers are on the bicycle in the third period.   One can take three stall warnings without any concern.

[152lbs]

I can't stand the three point TD, and am hoping more continues to validate that it has little additional value.

[BruceyB]

Fire as usual WKN.

[Eagle26]

@Wrestleknownothing I’d be curious what you would get if you run the data for the two point takedowns based only on 2022-2023. 1993 was a looong time ago and so much has changed (including much better defense and more stingy wrestling). That could skew the data IMO. 

[Eagle26]

My opinion without any data to back it up is that the 3 point takedown has only done two things one good, one bad):

1. Made the match better proportionally between takedown and escape to determine the “better” wrestler. Ex. Of a 2pt TD match I do not like: Wrestle A has 2 takedowns and one escape. Wrestler B has one takedown and 3 escapes. Match is tied 5-5. 
 

2. In a one takedown match, with 4-2 score, the 3pt TD allows the winning wrestler to take an extra stall call. 
 

I don’t think it has encouraged or discouraged anyone from going for more takedowns. 

[Dark Energy]

I’d be curious to see the noise in the data.  That stats for every year.  
 

Also, curious on why tech falls are excluded from the data?

[CHROMEBIRD]

1 hour ago, Dark Energy said:

I’d be curious to see the noise in the data.  That stats for every year.  
 

Also, curious on why tech falls are excluded from the data?

He previously did an analysis of 3TD on bonus points

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

I’d be curious to see the noise in the data.  That stats for every year.  
 

Also, curious on why tech falls are excluded from the data?

I excluded TF because I wanted to focus on matches that went the distance. But even if you include TF the direction does not change. The impact is more muted, but still large. Including TF, one take down matches then were 5.1% and now are 7.1% (+39%). There is no impact on zero takedown matches. They still rank 9th now vs. 27th then.

I will come up with a way to illustrate the noise.

[Doublehalf]

For me just going by the eye test, close matches just don't feel as close and the optics of a guy on ice skates for two minutes at the end of the match is not a great one to watch...

I definitely think that offensive wrestlers should be rewarded with the 3 points but there also needs to be some kind of counterbalance for the other wrestler to score in more ways than just stall calls at the end of a match when the other wrestler just shuts it down ie. push out potentially.

There has to be another tweak that can make matches feel close again and not be as boring to watch which I really noticed in this past years' finals.

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

@Wrestleknownothing I’d be curious what you would get if you run the data for the two point takedowns based only on 2022-2023. 1993 was a looong time ago and so much has changed (including much better defense and more stingy wrestling). That could skew the data IMO. 

That does bring things much closer.

In 2023 and 2024 the 3-2 match was the most popular with 6.9% of full time matches (6.8% of all matches).

While 2024 and 2025 saw the 4-2 score top the list with 7.9% of full time matches (7.1% of all matches).

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

[Jim L]

Referees are so hesitant to call a stall call in the thid that either awards a victory or sends a match into OT.I that I think it would be very difficult to account for a this in an analysis of the 3 pt TD v the 2 pt.

I still like it because of the extra value it places on the TD which is so much harder than an escape. 

Finally, anecdotally, I feel that there has always been and will continue to be lots of stalling in a any match in the third where a wrestler is up by one score.

[Coastal]

14 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

Or make stalling points 2, 2, 4, DQ.   I hate the idea of officials deciding matches but stalling is a problem on top and in neutral.   I think they also call it too often on bottom.

I'd also like to see the ankle pass with the same 5 count as dropping to an ankle.

I'm against a push out rule but could be talked into a step out rule where a wrestler who voluntarily steps out is hit with stalling.

[CHROMEBIRD]

Bit of apples-and-oranges with folkstyle and today's freestyle rules, but I don't recall if the action was any better or worse back when FILA awarded 1TDs. I think they went to 2+ to encourage more exciting takedowns (amplitude, etc.), which is what they were really after, rather than just "action". But IIRC they also did a bunch of rules tinkering with the clinch/ball grabs and such around that timeframe. I guess folk attempted similar with the revised NF points rules but dunno if an analogue from neutral would work.

[Caveira]

2 hours ago, Jim L said:

Referees are so hesitant to call a stall call in the thid that either awards a victory or sends a match into OT.I that I think it would be very difficult to account for a this in an analysis of the 3 pt TD v the 2 pt.

I still like it because of the extra value it places on the TD which is so much harder than an escape. 

Finally, anecdotally, I feel that there has always been and will continue to be lots of stalling in an any match in the third where a wrestler is up by one score.

Why do some say the hardest thing for a freshmen to adjust for is learning how to get off bottom then ?

[pmilk]

It’s obvious that the elimination of RT at the high school level has had a negative impact on mat wrestling at the collegiate level. How in the world can college coaches build on the skills and strategies when there is little foundation from which to build? Why did they eliminate it? I have asked folks. No one can really tell me, but here’s my guess; Too many coaches at that level don’t know or understand the intricate mechanics of top and bottom mat wrestling. We are reluctant to admit that it’s too hard and frustrating to teach and learn for a large majority of hs coaches. It’s easier to denigrate it, lower the standards, and do away with it, than to put in the time and effort to learn it and be successful. So, we change the rules and we dumb it down so it gives more folks a chance and makes "coaching" easier. Bottom wrestling has suffered as a result.

The three-point TD doesn’t create more wrestling. It now takes less wrestling to score more points. Point inflation pacifies the freestyle clique. It doesn’t make the sport any more interesting or give it mass appeal, which it will never achieve anyway. The dog whistle complaint is that mat wrestling and ankle control is boring and if you do catch an ankle or drop down to a single to maintain control, it’s stalling and, therefore, a detriment to the sport. The real detriment to the sport is not coaching an athlete on all the various techniques that he has available in any given situation, both offensively and defensively.

As far as stalling goes...Matches are only 7 min and we can now have an entire match where both wrestlers start neutral. There's a lot of time spent jockeying around, measuring, feeling things out, etc. To expect  two wrestlers to go balls out for 7 min is not reasonable. In virtually every sport, keeping and protecting a lead, aka-stalling, is part of the strategy. There's plenty of it in freestyle. What's the entire purpose of being in the down position in free? TO STALL. Flatten out like a starfish/post-it note and wait a 5-7 seconds. The irony is, that strategy is encouraged not criticized. Smart wrestlers, get ahead, stay ahead, protect their handywork and smart stall...plain and simple, like it or not.

 

[StanfordTree133]

On 6/23/2025 at 4:11 PM, Coastal said:

All the three point takedown has done is give room for an extra stall call in the third period.

 

A late first period takedown and ride out, an escape with no riding time and most wrestlers are on the bicycle in the third period.   One can take three stall warnings without any concern.

Idk how people aren’t more aware/annoyed with this… it’s literally ruined 1 takedown matches 

[Scouts Honor]

as several of us thought.  

it didn't increase activity and probably lessened it

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

44 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

as several of us thought.  

it didn't increase activity and probably lessened it

 

I was just looking at that.

Zero Takedown Matches

• In the two years prior to the rule change (2022 -2023) there were 13 matches where the winner had 1 point (i.e. no takedowns).
• In the two years since the rule change (2024 - 2025) there have been 76 matches where the winner had 1 or 2 points (20 with a single point, 56 with 2 points).

One Takedown Matches

• In the two years prior to the rule change (2022 -2023) there were 51 matches where the winner had 2 or 3 points (i.e. one takedown).
• In the two years since the rule change (2024 - 2025) there have been 352 matches where the winner had 3, 4, or 5 points.
• Even if you expand the 2022-2023 scoring to include 2, 3, or 4 points for the winner, based on the assumption most 4 point matches involve one TD, one or two escapes, and zero or one riding point, the total is still only 281 matches.

No matter how you look at it there has been a substantial uptick in zero (+485%) or one takedown matches (between 24% and 590%).

I think by any metric it is clear that the 3-point takedown has had the opposite effect to what was intended.

[red viking]

It's all relative. By giving more pts for takedowns and NF, we've de-emphasized reversals, escapes and penalty points. I think the penalty points is the big one for me. At least one other person here pointed that out. A wrestler can stall more, etc without if having a significant chance of affecting the outcome. 

[Hank]

ok i just had a thought. keep the 3 pt takedown 

- make stalling have a tiered system so that you get 1 pt first period, then 2 pts in the 2nd and 3rd.  you retain the warning, penalty, penalty, penalty, dq system

OR

- implement the step out rule and it only be applicable in the 3rd period.  this would have no warning.  just 1 pt for every infraction

[JimmyCinnabon]

On 6/23/2025 at 10:28 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

This is a very interesting take. As a counterpoint do we think maybe guys take less risks as in they don't take any shots until the last minute of the third period if we do this? Maybe the 1.5 isn't enough incentive for guys to take a risk on generating offense and shooting?

What about a 1-pt push out rule, but you can only be awarded a push out point in the last 30 seconds of a period? This way if someone is up 4-2 in the third and they run they risk being pushed out for an easy point multiple times.

I honestly don't have a solution for this, I am just spitballing. This topic has been talked about for so long and they obviously thought they needed to address it by making a TD 3-pts but at this point maybe that wasn't the solution either.

[pmilk]

Folks are upset that the leading score can "stall." One of your jobs as an opponent who is behind is to expose the stalling. As long as the leader is fulfilling the requirements for "not stalling," i.e. not backing up, avoiding contact, etc., then it isn't considered stalling. Know the rules and how to work them to your advantage regardless whether you are leading or losing. Look at the rules books prior to 1985 and compare them to now....way more pages, way more rules, and the sport hasn't gained any more popularity and may even be losing some. Making more rules is not the answer. Coaching is the answer. It's not the style. It's the rules and the coaching. Why is PSU so good? Lots of schools get good kids. Being well coached in virtually every aspect of the sport is one of several factors that allows PSU to excel.

Edited 2 hours ago by pmilk
complete my sentence

[Rassling2]

Foe

Edited 1 hour ago by Rassling2