Gardner vs Karelin

[reversaloffortune]

Imagine if that match were scored by modern rules and without the clinch.

[reversaloffortune]

Gardner gets first passivity.  Is that the equivilent of a shot clock?  So now he is down 1-0.

Through the first period there do not appear to be pushouts.

2nd period

Clinch - call that a Karelin shot clock, no new score and now score is 1-1

No push outs and at 5:09 Gardner put down again.  So a modern shot clock.  Score is 2-1 Karelin

At 6 min modern rules score is 2-1 Karelin.  The Russian wins.

OT rules at 6:21 Karelin on the clock, no score. Now 2-2

Still no push outs, match stayed in bounds.

At 7:36 Gardner on the clock no score Now 3-2 Karelin

At 9 min match over Karelin still wins 3-2 if the OT rules of that era existed now.

At 6 minutes Karelin still wins 2-1 because Gardner was put down twice vs Karelin once.

[boconnell]

1 hour ago, reversaloffortune said:

Gardner gets first passivity.  Is that the equivilent of a shot clock?  So now he is down 1-0.

Through the first period there do not appear to be pushouts.

2nd period

Clinch - call that a Karelin shot clock, no new score and now score is 1-1

No push outs and at 5:09 Gardner put down again.  So a modern shot clock.  Score is 2-1 Karelin

At 6 min modern rules score is 2-1 Karelin.  The Russian wins.

OT rules at 6:21 Karelin on the clock, no score. Now 2-2

Still no push outs, match stayed in bounds.

At 7:36 Gardner on the clock no score Now 3-2 Karelin

At 9 min match over Karelin still wins 3-2 if the OT rules of that era existed now.

At 6 minutes Karelin still wins 2-1 because Gardner was put down twice vs Karelin once.

I agree that if you change the rules and retroactively score the match under rules neither guy was aware of, the outcome would be different.

[reversaloffortune]

Rulon won fair and square under the rules.  It's just interesting to apply the modern scoring system to the match.  I don't like the shot clock. Under 1992 rules it would have been OT indefinitely until a point scored.