The 3-Point Takedown: Friend or Foe?

[mspart]

Not a fan.   They increase that, did they increase the tech fall criteria?  Neither did they in FS.  Not a fan really.  

mspart

[BruceyB]

On 6/24/2025 at 11:25 AM, CHROMEBIRD said:

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.

FILA went to 2pt takedowns after the step-out was implemented IIRC. It didn't make sense to reward a takedown and a push-out equally.

[BruceyB]

3 hours ago, pmilk said:

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.

Do you watch current college wrestling? A wrestler has a lead with 30 seconds to go in the third period and they immediately back up to the edge, then circle along along OB line, and they dare the referee to interfere with the outcome of the match. 

The problem is that referees have let wrestlers abuse stalling for so long that it's now considered standard and a part of the game. Referees should be less afraid to make potentially outcoming changing calls, and as they continue to do so, people will be more reluctant to stall at the end of matches because they know the ref is going to hit them.

[pmilk]

On 6/25/2025 at 3:49 PM, BruceyB said:

Do you watch current college wrestling? A wrestler has a lead with 30 seconds to go in the third period and they immediately back up to the edge, then circle along along OB line, and they dare the referee to interfere with the outcome of the match. 

The problem is that referees have let wrestlers abuse stalling for so long that it's now considered standard and a part of the game. Referees should be less afraid to make potentially outcoming changing calls, and as they continue to do so, people will be more reluctant to stall at the end of matches because they know the ref is going to hit them.

Brucey?   Ha...yes, I do watch current college wrestling. Actually...been watching wrestling since I've been old enough to see.  I apologize for not being able to adequately explain the strategy of protecting a lead and "smart stalling." Stalling has always been and always will be a "standard and part of the game."  I do have a little experience wrestling at the college level against exceptional competition and "stalling" within the confines of the rules as written was a great weapon. First of all, my observation is that referee's usually call stalling when it's obvious and not cloaked well. When it is concealed well, they have no choice. They can't call it.  Second of all, the lead wrestler has earned that right to stall at the end of a match particularly when a stall call will not affect the outcome of the match and especially if he has no prior stall calls. Handing out a courtesy stall at the end is...other than appeasing folks like you...useless anyway. That you, or others, don't approve...well, I can't help you on that.

As mentioned earlier, as a wrestler, if you feel your opponent is stalling, you have a responsibility to expose it and get the call. Actually, as a strategy, I was taught to try to get my opponent called for stalling early in the match so that call is hanging over his head for the rest of the match. Usually, not always, a very good coach teaches and drills those techniques. Sometimes a wrestler can figure it out on his own too, but I was taught stalling and "expose" stalling techniques and used it very well, might I add.

[BruceyB]

On 6/25/2025 at 8:53 AM, pmilk said:

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.

I don't disagree with anything you said in your recent post. My initial disagreement was that in the current state of college wrestling, leading wrestler's routinely fail to fulfill any requirements for "not stalling" and still don't get called.. on a reset with 30 seconds left, the leading wrestler can immediately move backwards off the whistle all the way to the edge and virtually never get called for stalling the first time they use this tactic, once their opponent closes the gap, they either wrestle on the edge where they can kick OB if in danger, or they will literally run in a big circle to "re-center" taking more time of the clock refusing to engage in contact. They aren't disguising or fooling anyone, and the refs are still swallowing their whistle. It's the job of the referees to call stalling when it's clear, and the referees have allowed egregious stalling tactics for too long. 

Maybe we're in agreement and misunderstood each other's argument. I understand good stalling tactics, but one of the main tactics I see used today is blatant stalling and betting that the referee won't make the big call. Ayala should have been hit half a dozen times in the finals against Byrd.

[rsotelo]

I would like reversals to be worth 3 and riding time to be worth 1pt PER MINUTE.  If you can't get out for 4 minutes, you deserve to give up more than one point.

 

Unfortunately, I doubt we ever go back to 2pt takedowns.

[Caveira]

I would like the rules to stop changing every 5 minutes.   Please dear lord baby Jesus.  
 

 

[Ragu]

28 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I would like the rules to stop changing every 5 minutes.   Please dear lord baby Jesus.  

To contrast, I’d like the rules to change every year

[Wrestleknownothing]

54 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I would like the rules to stop changing every 5 minutes.   Please dear lord baby Jesus.  
 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Ragu said:

To contrast, I’d like the rules to change every year

As someone who is working on rescoring every tournament from the match up, I am #teamcaveira on this one.

[Caveira]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

 

As someone who is working on rescoring every tournament from the match up, I am #teamcaveira on this one.

Woo hoo! 

[2001Hokie]

2 hours ago, BruceyB said:

I don't disagree with anything you said in your recent post. My initial disagreement was that in the current state of college wrestling, leading wrestler's routinely fail to fulfill any requirements for "not stalling" and still don't get called.. on a reset with 30 seconds left, the leading wrestler can immediately move backwards off the whistle all the way to the edge and virtually never get called for stalling the first time they use this tactic, once their opponent closes the gap, they either wrestle on the edge where they can kick OB if in danger, or they will literally run in a big circle to "re-center" taking more time of the clock refusing to engage in contact. They aren't disguising or fooling anyone, and the refs are still swallowing their whistle. It's the job of the referees to call stalling when it's clear, and the referees have allowed egregious stalling tactics for too long. 

Maybe we're in agreement and misunderstood each other's argument. I understand good stalling tactics, but one of the main tactics I see used today is blatant stalling and betting that the referee won't make the big call. Ayala should have been hit half a dozen times in the finals against Byrd.

Certainly biased on one of these, but the finals of Henson vs Lovett and Robinson vs Spratley are prime examples of dancing on the OB line not leading to stall calls.  Just enough acting like you might engage and false-circling to show you're 'active.'  

[CHROMEBIRD]

I've wondered if takedown scoring zones would add more excitement or at least mitigate a little bit of stalling and fleeing. Setup the mat as 3 concentric circles with takedowns in the bullseye zone (center mat) worth 2 points, then 3 points for takedowns in the middle ring, and 4 points at the outermost ring with continuation for OOB. 

Or maybe the points should be flipped to award more points in the center? Idk. But my thinking is that a wrestler sitting on a lead will want to minimize risk and not hang out at the edge of the mat, and force them to wrestle near the center rather than flee. No idea if this would work, I'm sure someone else here could game this out better than I can, but just some food for thought.

[pmilk]

BB...I know it's easy for many of us to sit in the stands or in the coaching corner and "referee." I've competed and coached at virtually every level and I have reffed...I'll take coaching any day! Reffing is not an easy job for sure. A vast majority of the refs I've seen and interacted with over the course of my lifetime are fair, competent, and professional. Like every profession, there are dopes, biased refs, and incompetent turds, just like some coaches (and edge to the coaches)...but refereeing is a very tough job and it's easy to criticize from afar. They don't always get right... no one does, but they do the best they can, I think...and I believe the NCAA refs are some of the best in any sport.

Anyway, more rules is not going to prevent using tactics that some people don't like and more rules just muddies the water and usually leads to more rules and then people lose interest in the sport. Smart athletes, in all sports, find ways to let the rules work in their favor. Call it manipulation, call it clever, call it stalling...

[BruceyB]

29 minutes ago, pmilk said:

BB...I know it's easy for many of us to sit in the stands or in the coaching corner and "referee." I've competed and coached at virtually every level and I have reffed...I'll take coaching any day! Reffing is not an easy job for sure. A vast majority of the refs I've seen and interacted with over the course of my lifetime are fair, competent, and professional. Like every profession, there are dopes, biased refs, and incompetent turds, just like some coaches (and edge to the coaches)...but refereeing is a very tough job and it's easy to criticize from afar. They don't always get right... no one does, but they do the best they can, I think...and I believe the NCAA refs are some of the best in any sport.

Anyway, more rules is not going to prevent using tactics that some people don't like and more rules just muddies the water and usually leads to more rules and then people lose interest in the sport. Smart athletes, in all sports, find ways to let the rules work in their favor. Call it manipulation, call it clever, call it stalling...

You're still missing my point, apparently. I'm not criticizing the referees abilities. I am criticizing the current way that wrestling is regularly officiated where a lot of blatant stalling is permitted without consequence. I'm not doubting the referees abilities to recognize stalling, I'm questioning the point at which the stalling is egregious enough to be called.

I'm not advocating for more rules. I'm advocating for obvious stalling to be called stalling. Just because you have a lead doesn't mean you should be able back up to the edge and step OB anytime you get into trouble for the final minute of the match.

[pmilk]

BB...ok, just so I better understand how you may think and wrestle ...I'm ahead of you 3-2, no stalling calls, :30 seconds left, or make it the 1:00 that you stated, and we're on our feet...what do you recommend I do, or how would you coach me, to ensure I win the match?

ps..someone else was advocating for more rules...I just thought I could kill two birds with that one stone.

[BruceyB]

1 hour ago, pmilk said:

BB...ok, just so I better understand how you may think and wrestle ...I'm ahead of you 3-2, no stalling calls, :30 seconds left, or make it the 1:00 that you stated, and we're on our feet...what do you recommend I do, or how would you coach me, to ensure I win the match?

ps..someone else was advocating for more rules...I just thought I could kill two birds with that one stone.

I know that you're a newer poster, so just an easy tip, if you type @ and then the users name you're responding to, or simply quote them with the "quote" button under their post, it tags them in your response and they get notified. Welcome to the board though!

And I won't bother with the scenario of 30 seconds with no stall warning, because you can basically do whatever you want in the amount of time and even with how I would like a match to be officiated, there is nearly anyway to justify hitting a guy twice with 30 seconds left.

But with 1:00 left, I would tell my athlete not to stop wrestling. Be conservative and don't take any unnecessary risks, but a minute is too long to avoid wrestling. But be defensive in the ties to slow your opponent down and make it difficult for your opponent get find an opening, if he takes a bad shot and you can reattack for find a front headlock, you stay there and "look" like you're trying to score and eat time off the clock. If you have an opening to get to a leg (which often happens when a guy is in desperation mode late, drop in on the leg and eat time that way.

With a minute left, I look at the goal as to be just active enough not get give up your first stall warning, and then once you get down to the final thirty, you can pretty much just disengage. Like I said above, 30 seconds left with zero stall warnings, you aren't getting hit twice for stalling.

And I know this reply is already too long, but one last point: my argument was mostly in regard to the topic of this thread. With the three point takedown, you often have a wrestler enter the third with a 4-1 lead, in a 1 takedown match (obviously), and with 3 stall calls to give. In this case, they have 3 stalls to give before it effects the outcome of the match. My suggestion with quicker stall calls is to prevent matches where the leading wrestler can dance around the mat without engaging for an entire period with impunity. 

[NYupstate]

On 6/23/2025 at 9:38 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

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).

 

Sorry if this is dense of me, but this means TF were not included in the 6.9 vs 7.9%, correct? 

I imagine TF are now more common than they were previously, and if they are included that would push the numbers even closer, or into favoring the 3 pt takedown if viewer excitement is the goal. 

I applaud looking critically at rule changes to make sure they have the desired effect, and to be open to changing other rules in order to keep the sport interesting. Thanks for your contribution to this effort.

[Caveira]

47 minutes ago, NYupstate said:

Sorry if this is dense of me, but this means TF were not included in the 6.9 vs 7.9%, correct? 

I imagine TF are now more common than they were previously, and if they are included that would push the numbers even closer, or into favoring the 3 pt takedown if viewer excitement is the goal. 

I applaud looking critically at rule changes to make sure they have the desired effect, and to be open to changing other rules in order to keep the sport interesting. Thanks for your contribution to this effort.

If we just want tech falls for viewer excitement make the first takedown in the first period worth 15 points.    I’m being obscene but really making things worth more to end matches faster isn’t exciting is it?

[pmilk]

10 hours ago, BruceyB said:

I know that you're a newer poster, so just an easy tip, if you type @ and then the users name you're responding to, or simply quote them with the "quote" button under their post, it tags them in your response and they get notified. Welcome to the board though!

And I won't bother with the scenario of 30 seconds with no stall warning, because you can basically do whatever you want in the amount of time and even with how I would like a match to be officiated, there is nearly anyway to justify hitting a guy twice with 30 seconds left.

But with 1:00 left, I would tell my athlete not to stop wrestling. Be conservative and don't take any unnecessary risks, but a minute is too long to avoid wrestling. But be defensive in the ties to slow your opponent down and make it difficult for your opponent get find an opening, if he takes a bad shot and you can reattack for find a front headlock, you stay there and "look" like you're trying to score and eat time off the clock. If you have an opening to get to a leg (which often happens when a guy is in desperation mode late, drop in on the leg and eat time that way.

With a minute left, I look at the goal as to be just active enough not get give up your first stall warning, and then once you get down to the final thirty, you can pretty much just disengage. Like I said above, 30 seconds left with zero stall warnings, you aren't getting hit twice for stalling.

And I know this reply is already too long, but one last point: my argument was mostly in regard to the topic of this thread. With the three point takedown, you often have a wrestler enter the third with a 4-1 lead, in a 1 takedown match (obviously), and with 3 stall calls to give. In this case, they have 3 stalls to give before it effects the outcome of the match. My suggestion with quicker stall calls is to prevent matches where the leading wrestler can dance around the mat without engaging for an entire period with impunity. 

BB...so what you are recommending is to....smart stall.  Stalling is ok now, eh? I would add to work "smartly" towards the edge, in case: 1) something goes wrong...discreetly get out of bounds, and 2) if my back is to the edge, circle in and take a 1/2 shot to make him go out...keeps the refs very happy. Perhaps it's semantics, but with a minute left and 1pt lead, I'm shutting it down, I'm done wrestling. You are essentially doing the same thing except you call it "don't stop wrestling." I'll give you a B+ for the stall strategy.

3pt. TD was a mistake imo. puts more emphasis on TD's and diminishes mat wrestling...headed towards freestyle, but that's another discussion. thanks for the tip, perhaps I'll figure out how to use it someday.

I'm not a new poster. been on here many years. I just post infrequently and only when something piques my interest.

And you were criticizing the referees for not calling what you think they should be calling.

Edited Friday at 01:01 PM by pmilk
add context

[MPhillips]

2 hours ago, NYupstate said:

I imagine TF are now more common than they were previously

@Wrestleknownothing

[Hank]

i agree with Bruce.  everyone knows the lead wrestler is stalling.  just tell the refs to start calling stall calls at the end of matches and if it decides the result of some matches then so be it.  the lead wrestler should have engaged more not backed up to the circle.  maybe they will stop stalling/disengaging if they know the refs actually WILL penalize them.

you don't have to back up to the edge of the circle.  you can do other things to waste time that are not considered "not engaging".  there's gamesmanship and then there's just running away.

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 hours ago, NYupstate said:

Sorry if this is dense of me, but this means TF were not included in the 6.9 vs 7.9%, correct? 

I imagine TF are now more common than they were previously, and if they are included that would push the numbers even closer, or into favoring the 3 pt takedown if viewer excitement is the goal. 

I applaud looking critically at rule changes to make sure they have the desired effect, and to be open to changing other rules in order to keep the sport interesting. Thanks for your contribution to this effort.

Not dense at all. I often make the mistake of not explaining fully enough because I have spent so much time with the data that I make assumptions without making the assumptions clear.

Including the TF and pinfall are the numbers in parenthesis in the post you referenced (6.8% vs 7.1%) which brings the numbers closer, but does not favor the three point era. But that is just a single score line. A few posts later I expanded the analysis to include all zero and one takedown matches, and that is more damning for the 3 point takedown.

On 6/25/2025 at 9:33 AM, Wrestleknownothing said:

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.

 

[ionel]

49 minutes ago, Hank said:

 everyone knows the lead wrestler is stalling.  

Curious how did the lead wrestle gain the lead and what was the non lead wrestler doing?

[MPhillips]

53 minutes ago, Hank said:

just tell the refs to start calling stall calls

This seems like a simple compromise.

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

Curious how did the lead wrestle gain the lead

Got a TD.

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

what was the non lead wrestler doing?

Not getting a TD.

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Not getting a TD.

... or STALLING!