3 point takedown revisited

[MNRodent]

After 2.5 seasons how are we liking the 3 pt takedown? Are we seeing more takedown attempts and more action?  Just my anecdotal observations, but it seems like there are a lot of 4-1 type matches for highly ranked guys with almost no action for 6-8 minutes, and good scoring attempts only occurring at the end of regulation or overtime.

I do like that mismatches end sooner by tech falls, and not 22-7 type matches that went 7 minutes, but we all knew the outcome after the first minute.

Edited January 24 by MNRodent

[mr.nonothingatall]

The need to call more stalling

[MNRodent]

24 minutes ago, mr.nonothingatall said:

The need to call more stalling

Yes, mandatory stall warning if no score in the first minute or two.

[WrestlingRash]

people who are in the call more stalling camp generally have no clue how hard it is to score on D1 wrestlers, even the bad ones. 

[WrestlingRash]

Also, the 3 point takedown is exactly what we needed. 

[mr.nonothingatall]

8 minutes ago, WrestlingRash said:

people who are in the call more stalling camp generally have no clue how hard it is to score on D1 wrestlers, even the bad ones. 

It's not the difficulty of scoring that draws a stall, it's the lack of even trying to score. Even when guys are winning the handfight and getting angles they aren't shooting, or guys that are so good at hand fighting, that they know the opponent won't win the handfight and won't shoot from space so they just keep them in the handfight as there defense. Stalling needs to be called so that one of them gets more offense going. The defense of these guys is insane, I know that. But I also think stalling isn't being called enough and if you think that makes me and idiot. Than I'm ok with that

6 minutes ago, WrestlingRash said:

Also, the 3 point takedown is exactly what we needed. 

The three point take down is much better imo

[nhs67]

1 hour ago, MNRodent said:

Yes, mandatory stall warning if no score in the first minute or two.

I think if a period ends 0-0 a mandatory double stall would be cool.

Even if one has already been called.

[MPhillips]

Hate the double stall. Seems like a chicken sh i te call...

[ionel]

10 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

I think if a period ends 0-0 a mandatory double stall would be cool.

Even if one has already been called.

 

1 minute ago, MPhillips said:

Hate the double stall. Seems like a chicken sh i te call...

If two guys want to stand there and admire each other for 7 minutes that's their business.  Double stall is silly.  

[1032004]

I think 3 points for a TD is the proper value compared to an escape and given the recent increase in value to NF.

But it doesn’t seem to have increased action. And may have diminished it.  Seems like most scoring is off of counters.

[Offthemat]

I wonder what would be the effect if for going out of bounds, the ref had to flip the red/green disc to determine which wrestler gets the stall call would have?  Taking any questions about impartiality away.  Sometimes it’s hard to tell which one’s the culprit.  

The three point takedown is fine.  Make reversals three as well.  It would still be more points to to score an escape and a takedown, but a reversal is more of that mat wrestling and can be as exciting as a takedown. 
 

The answer to another thread’s question about top wrestling might be going (back?) to a difference in scoring a techfall.  Giving a higher value to tech falls with back points.  Make it five w/o; six with backs; seven for a pin. 

[ionel]

Merrill and Byrd went out of their way this weekend to prove the 3pt td is unnecessary. 

[Nak21]

I like it. From a PSU standpoint, there doesn’t seem to be a decrease in action. PSU had 48 TDs against Indiana Friday night. Guys attack and attack for the most part.

As for 4-1 SV or regulation type matches with highly ranked guys…hello, welcome to wrestling!! It’s been like that for a while and in all styles. Super good guys can’t often do much to each other and that often limits their attempts for fear of the opponent capitalizing on a failed attempt. Certain NCAA finals matches have been snooze fests for decades. The Olympics before all the rules changes (push outs, passivity/shot clock points) could occasionally be garbage to watch and decided by corrupt officials. 
I’m not sure we can incentivize action anymore - 3pt TD, 4pt NF. But they can definitely punish inaction more. Be much more aggressive with stall calls, may not help but hey, sometimes you just gotta punish the guilty party and that’s that.

[boconnell]

10 hours ago, Coastal said:

When the 3pt takedown was first announced, quite a few people predicted that would just give wrestlers an extra stall warning.

Last night's Swiderski match was a perfect example.  One takedown and he wrestled the rest of the match "tactically" for the 4-3 win.

 

I agree it rewards the guy who scores a TD more than the guy who doesn't.  

[alex1fly]

I like it and I don’t think it’s decreased action. There have always been snoozers, low scoring matches, defensive bouts etc. Easier to run up a score but also easier to come back from a deficit. Counter offense does seem more effective than ever but I can’t see that being because of 3 pt TD, I think that’s more due to the spread of techniques like diving for the ankle, step over. 

Edited January 25 by alex1fly