russelscout

35 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

By that logic you should make takedowns worth zero so no one is afraid to try for one.

No. It’s more risky, but there’s also more reward. My point is that it doesn’t really change anything and does nothing to increase the frequency of attacks. You can now score an early takedown and have 2 stall calls to play with which is too bad since the number one issue in the sport in my opinion is refs refusing to call stalling. 
 

We have yet to see it be a major issue so far, but I expect we will see a lot of sitting on first period leads come conference championships and the NCAAs

.

1 hour ago, boconnell said:

I didn't say it's guaranteed to make guys attack more frequently.  

But making offensive attacks worth more than defensive attacks is absolutely not going to discourage offense.  

What if someone scores a takedown off of the others offensive attack? It also makes offensive attacks more risky.

8 hours ago, peanut said:

 

I like three point takedowns because it encourages offense. I think it makes the matches more fun to watch.

 

It’s also more risky to give up a takedown… I’m not sure that it actually encourages offense…

39 minutes ago, ionel said:

Maybe rocket science ain't that hard anymore, after all SpaceX has been launching rockets and landing them back on the pad for years now.

15 hours ago, boconnell said:

So your assertion is that offensive scores being worth more in comparison to defensive scores will encourage less offense.

I guess that's a take.

Score once and sit on a lead. This was already a problem and this makes it worse. This in no way guarantees that wrestlers will attack more frequently.
 

It’s not rocket science. 

On 11/25/2023 at 12:31 PM, feet2back said:

Just think Dresser will go on a Winning streak starting tomorrow and for next couple years...Can't wait to watch match!

Maybe next year.

1 hour ago, boconnell said:

I completely agree that this will benefit the guy who scores on offense.

One score and put the running shoes on! Great for the sport!

This rule did nothing to solve stalling and boring matches… if anything, it will make it worse.

1 hour ago, Jim L said:

IMO, it is just as likely that wrestlers will not sit on leads, because they will know that a 3-4 point lead is not safe with 3 point TDs.

Realistically, it will not change much strategy as it is really hard to score points in D1. Wrestlers with leads will try to stall no matter what the rules are

There is more room to stall with a lead. By increasing the value of a takedown, you’ve devalued everything else, including stalling points. It’s a lot safer to do nothing and fend off attacks than to risk being offensive, give up 3 on a go around, and blow a lead.

14 hours ago, 1032004 said:

I was afraid this would be an issue, but in what I’ve watched so far it has not been IMO.

Just wait… by the end of the season that might change

On 10/30/2023 at 7:38 PM, wrestle87 said:

I’m really looking forward to different perspectives that change my opinion on this.  I love wrestling and I don’t want this change to bug me all year.  Right now it really does.  

I just watched the Ohio State wrestle-offs.  

I really dislike how overweighted a 3 point takedown is compared to other scoring events.

I’m open to change (I watch freestyle just as much) but I really don’t think this gets the job done.  We now have a ruleset that aggressively overweights the takedown, and feels like it will drive everything to a poor facsimile of freestyle.

I admit I didn’t do my homework before watching, but I was rather taken aback by how different a 3 point takedown impacted match pace.  

This ruleset removes a number of different possibilities for interesting exchanges actually making a match equal, and it doesn’t reward the awesome non-controlled exposure throws that freestyle and greco do, which are what make freestyle so awesome to me.

Someone who likes this ruleset, I’m begging you, please change my mind and help me like this rule change.

I think we will look back at the 3 point takedown as a huge mistake. Guys already were getting one takedown and sitting on the lead for a win. Now you can do that even more. Get a takedown in the first, allow two escapes, get an escape of your own, and with a 2 point lead you can get 2 stall calls and win the match. 

The leadership behind this decision is f’ing stupid…. Not to mention they changed the one thing fans actually engage in; yelling TWOOOOO when there is a takedown. 

3 point takedown is idiotic. You’ve now made it easier to get one takedown and ride out and sit on a lead.

I’m wondering what the response would be if a wrestler after the match just said “God isn’t real and people who believe in him are stupid.”

No reason this should take this long.

Reviews are taking too long

Great wrestler, but a religious zealot.

5 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

God made him to...beat another guy?  I don't understand this thought process from very religious folks.  I ask this earnestly, is the idea that God favors one of his children over another?

Don’t try to mix religion with logic. 

.

Just now, Paul158 said:

Why is this on the wrestling forum? I thought this forum was for discussion about wrestling. 

The Finals doesn’t fall under wrestling discussion? 

Just now, Cherkov said:

Your avatar and namesake was so hated and divisive in his contemporary society that they sentence him to death in a public trial. That's how much they didn't need him. 

… as far as I know Socrates will not be attending tonight so no worries.

8 minutes ago, Natty Boh Army said:

I am no Iowa apologist, but they're hardly free falling. 6 AAs and wire to wire #2 in the nation is a result most schools would die for. And now that Ok St has more or less fallen off the map, there is no real perennial threat to their spot behind Penn St. And Penn St? Yeah, nobody is beating them. One could craft an argument that Cael and Co. have built not only the most dominant dynasty in college wrestling, but perhaps the most impressive dynasty in all college sports. No, Brands is fine, and Iowa wrestling is still Iowa wrestling. 

Yep, Iowa is fine. They haven’t finished outside of the top 8 in 50 years. Pretty insane.

Jeez, I hope not. I want the finals to be about the finals.

.

5 minutes ago, Kansasdeanhwt said:

Question. hypothetically if spencer would have gone to PSU is their a scenario where his knees would have maybe help up better because PSU would not have needed him to wrestle or be the only face of the program. I’m sure the pressure to carry Iowa and be the face of their program carried extra burden on him and his body. 

Some kids just can’t stay healthy. I’ve coached a few kids with knee problems. They rehabbed right, took the time off, did all the right things, and still ended up tearing something again. 

21 minutes ago, Pa in Taiwan said:

The worst thing about this is the effect it will have on Spencer Lee himself. Unwilling or unable to face the wrestling public, he forfeits out. Unwilling or unable to compete for third place, he turns his back on the Iowa squad, which he has constantly cited as his reason for wanting to win it all. Psychological problems could be avoided by putting on the singlet and wrestling in the consis. This is called moving on with life. Forfeiting out is the wrong thing to do; it allows the loss to fester and calcify. Spencer should have chosen to wrestle to cleanse it and himself. 

I don’t know. How much you want to bet he has another torn ACL? In my experience, when you have kids that have multiple ACL repairs and continue to wrestle, it’s not if they will tear it again, but when. I highly doubt he is not wrestling just because of ego.