pmilk

wrestling and football.ppt see if this opens for you. pmilk

64...I hate to tell you this, but, it's actually referred to in the rules book as "defensive" position...apparently I was wasn't taught that it was a "disadvantaged position." Thank god. The inimitable Rick Sanders "when I'm on bottom, I have him right where I want him." As far as legs go, Knownothing, how did legs get in in the first place? There are symptoms/setups that indicate legs are coming, of which one should be aware, to PREVENT them getting in. Ok, so now that they're in, there are techniques to COUNTER legs and either free yourself or reverse/escape. Should those fail, your next option is to NEUTRALIZE them and get a stalemate. On the restart, shame on you if they come in again. The effect of using legs wears a guy out, accumulates RT, kills time, keeps him from scoring, saves you energy, and keeps the ref happy (if you're actively trying stuff). As Hokie states, there are three aspects to wrestling, master all three and you should do pretty well. Deficiency in one or two areas usually leads to whining/complaining/blaming/excuses/suggesting changing rules, etc.

How is being on bottom a disadvantage? You have the opportunity to escape, reverse, limit RT, possibly get back points. Perhaps coaches/wrestlers should spend more time working on effective bottom techniques rather than complaining that the guy on top is "stalling." And why shouldn't the top man be rewarded with points for control? You get points for control on TD's, reversals, tilts, NF's. Watched MSU/Northwestern on BTN. One match went like this- 0-0 1st. 2nd MSU top..NW reverses at 1:53. 3rd. NW takes down...MSU rides 2:00...totals 3:53 RT...loses 2-1. Enough action that there was no stalling. Sorry, but RT should have more value. 1pt for every 30 sec would increase the activity/action. I hear no one screaming "stalling" in Freestyle when in par terre bottom man flattens out like a post-it note on the mat while the top man fiddle farts around for the 5-7 secs before they go feet. Some of the problems with folkstyle nowadays is the infusion of freestyle concepts. Go back and look at some of the brackets/scores from '68-'85 which was pre-freestyle infusion. In virtually every sport, control is a primary goal for success. The rules committee has diminished the value of mat wrestling and put the emphasis on Neutral wrestling. Because down man cannot manage to free himself lies solely in his coaching or his learning the techniques, not because the top man has his ankle or he's on his stomach or he's wallowing in his own ignorance. A "push out" rule? Oh, please! Mandatory warning to someone if no score at the end of the 1st? They tried that back in the 70's...dumb rule.

Pretty impressive, WKN....

Back in the day ('68-'84) there were lots of opportunities to wrestle collegiately, more intangibles, and rules that offered more pinning opportunities. That 16 yr time span averaged 63 falls/13 OT's per tourney vs 32 falls/26 OT's per tourney for the last 16 yrs on the championship side of the brack Freshman and multiple time NCAA Champions are not unique in a field of 78 or so. There were four freshman NCAA champs from '68-'84 (approx. 350 schools in the field- D1+D2+D3). The top 2+2 WC's in D2 and the D3 Champs came to the Big Show. There were 13 Frosh champs in the last 16 yrs (approx 77 schools in the field) and there were 21 total Frosh champs total since '85. In '78 they awarded 6 AA's (1.65%) from a total field of approx 363 schools. Now they award 8 AA's (10.39%) from total field of 77 schools. Consider this abbreviated list of D2/D3 wrestlers who stood at the top of the podium in D1: Rich Sanders (Portland State), Stan Dzeidzic (Slippery Rock), Wade Schalles (Clarion), Joe Gonzales (CSU-Bakersfield), Carlton Haselrig (Pitt-Johnstown- 3x NCAA D2/D1 Champ) and Ken Mallory (D3-Montclair St.) I would have to push back on the idea that winning a championship was easier back then as opposed to now. Here's a very small sampling of NCAA scores from that period. Cleo McGlory (U of Okla) 21-4 in '68, Steve Dildine (Alabama) 27-3 in '70, Don Rohn (Clarion)26-6 in '73, Gary Breece (U of Okla) 24-2 in '74, Nabil Guketlov (Montclair St) 26-9 in '75, Mark Churella (Mich) 34-4, in '77, Shawn Whitcomb (Mich St) 30-7 in '79, Charlie Heard (UT-Chatt) 32-12 in '83, Joe Gibbons (Iowa St) 32-0 and Melvin Douglas (U of Okla) 35-5 in '84. That's a lot of wrestling, fans loved it, and those guys refused to get pinned. My how things have changed.

Scourge...where to start...obviously I don't know your vintage nor your level of experience, but to claim that there is more chain wrestling and counters now than ever before is...well, rather uninformed, to be kind. Been around a long time as a competitor and coach at virtually every level. Man's arms, legs, and head are in the exact same spots as they have been since the beginning of time. Give a man the correct stimulus and he will give you a predictable response. That's wrestling in a nutshell. And I hardly believe that you are "aware of them all," as some of those names/techniques were unique to our team and I have seen virtually no-one use several of them...ever, regardless of the label. You can cherry pick one technique (e.g.boot scoot -perhaps your boot scoot is a different technique than ours) and claim that it is not "automatic." Correct, our philosophy and coaching had us in the mindset that when an opp goes to his knees, we have enough firepower/options to make scoring damn near automatic. That's the point. The guy on his knees doesn't have to push or anything else...just being on his knees makes him vulnerable IF you have an arsenal of techniques from which to draw. If your opp is not "wrestling," your job is to expose it. That's what we were taught. Just because a guy is on his knees doesn't make it stalling. Plenty of guys on their feet stall. Furthermore, stalling a part of good strategy for winning. Fortunately for me, I had only four coaches from HS thru college and they are all in the National Wrestling Hall of Fame.

Scourge...happy to do so...and the names that we knew them as ---snapdown, post set cross snap, sidesnap, headwhip, shuck, elbow throw, boot scoot, limp arm underhook, front headlock combo's, shoulder extension knee trip, underhook cross wrist limp arm, misdirection hand shove, overhook limp arm, fireman's knee trip (Churella was the best I've seen with it from the knees). Lots of options if you know the techniques and set-ups. If a guy with one leg is allowed to drop to a knee to wrestle, then the same allowance has to be universal to bipeds as well. And there is no guaranteed way to score on someone from the feet either...just lots of options and set-ups. If there was one "guaranteed" way, then why practice anything else. Smart guys/coaches figure out ways to score instead of complaining or trying to change the rules.

Why would the last point scored carry more weight than the first point scored in a tie? Logic indicates that you can't have a last point if there isn't a first point in tie match regardless of how it is acquired. FWIW, I think duel meets could end with matches in a draw and save all the pomp and circumstance of criteria and OT for tournaments. Anticipating the rematch would create more excitement, imo. RT indicates a degree of control/dominance. All things equal, who had control of whom longer. Therefore, learn how to control/ride and learn how to escape/reverse efficiently and quickly for your advantage. Off topic...watched a freestyle match the other day and the bottom guy flattens out like a starfish for several seconds and then they go feet. Essentially, he stalls. Incredibly exciting...edge of your seat kind of stuff.

I don't think any sport jacks around with the rules more than wrestling, and if there is one, please let me know so I can avoid watching it. Personally, and this is food for thought and my observations; I don't think a match should go longer than 7 min if the score is tied. Criteria should be enough to determine the winner so that it would be very unusual to have an actual "tie." This is just an example of criteria/order, so don't jump down my throat. Most Unsportsmanlike loses, most stalling loses, most near falls 4, 3, 2 (tilts actually) wins, most TD's wins, reversals wins, escapes wins, and ultimately most RT. Maybe there's a different order or something else to add but you get the idea...As much as some of you dislike RT, dominating someone should be rewarded whether it's TD's, tilts, reversals, escapes, or RT. If, for some ungodly reason, all the criteria are equal, then the match should go no longer that a 1-1 OT. First score/wins or stall loses in 1st period from neutral. If still tied, flip the magic coin, winner chooses top/bottom. He gets out-it's over...he rides-it's over. On a side note...I watched a high school wrestling meet recently and in one match it was 0-0 in the 1st. 2nd period, Kid A (choice) takes top, rides like a dog in heat, trying stuff to score, kid on bottom warned for stalling (2 min domination on top, close to scoring but didn't)...no score, still 0-0. In the 3rd period the other kid (B) takes down... more of the same, with no stall calls, until the last 5 secs he escapes..AND WINS 1-0. This is one example of the injustice and irrationality of eliminating RT at the high school level. Worst case scenario, match should be tied and criteria applied and Kid A wins. Perhaps someone can elucidate for me just why was RT eliminated from HS and how it helps wrestling at the college level. I keep suggesting that 1pt for every :30 secs RT would make things pretty interesting. Perhaps that's another thread but...

WC...it is hilarious. my point was, smart, well-coached wrestlers figure it out. whether on his feet or on his knees, smart guys figure out how to make it work by finding a way to score or finding a way to make it look like his opponent is stalling instead of whining or making excuses. If he's stalling, expose it. Wrestling is at a point now that when things get too difficult to figure out, folks want the rule changed or they bellow, "he's stalling." He's got my ankle...help me ref! I didn't know how to prevent it and I don't know how to counter it. Start counting. He dropped to his knees ref, I don't know what to do. He's stalling. Sheesh!. Ha. P.S. I recruited Brian Smith to Michigan State when I was assistant there... apparently he learned something. Probably not from me though. I was just a hack.

Stalling is not unique to dropping to a knee...you can stall in any position. I had a great high school coach who taught us that when an opponent drops to his knees, it should be an automatic TD. We were also taught that there are just as many many TD techniques from the knees as there were in neutral...he still has legs...just shorter ones. And he's not as mobile on his knees. Whether YOU are neutral, on top, or your opponent is on his knees, one of your objectives is to make it look like HE's stalling. Besides, Robles has already set the precedent for wrestling on his knee. Smart, well coached wrestlers will drop to their opponents level and employ the myriad of techniques available for scoring. And there are a lot of them.

A touch off-topic but the point is...D2/D3 added interest and variables that made the NCAA's even more interesting. Article written for last months AWN.... My, How Things Have Changed My how things have changed! My time frame reference is 1968-1984, which I believe was the Golden Era of wrestling. That’s when college wrestling was the most healthy, robust, and deep. There were lots of opportunities to wrestle collegiately, more intangibles, and rules that apparently offered more pinning opportunities. That 16 year time span averaged 63 falls/13 OT’s per tourney vs 32 falls/26 OT’s per tourney for the last 16 years on the championship side of the bracket. My, how things have changed. There were no tech falls, no video reviews, no bricks, no grad school competitors, no 7th year seniors, no Olympic redshirts, no transferring without penalty, no choice to avoid mat wrestling, no “cheap tilts,” no touch falls, individual dual matches could end in a draw, and for years you could only wrestle back if you lost to a semifinalist or finalist. Matches were 2-3-3 vs the present 3-2-2. Overtime was 1-1-1. Here is a very small sampling of the scores from that period. Cleo McGlory (U of Okla) 21-4 in ’68, Steve Dildine (Alabama) 27-3 in ‘70, Don Rohn (Clarion) 26-6 in ’73, Gary Breece (U of Okla) 24-2 in 74, Nabil Guketlov (Montclair St.) 26-9 in ‘75, Mark Churella (Mich) 34-4 in ’77, Shawn Whitcomb (Mich St.) 30-7 in ’79, Charlie Heard (Univ Tenn-Chatt) 32-12 in ‘83, Joe Gibbons (Iowa St) 32-0 and Melvin Douglas (Univ of Okla) 35-5 in ’84. That’s a lot of wrestling, fans loved it, and those guys refused to be pinned! Why are those kinds of scores are no longer allowed? My, how things have changed. The top 2 finishers, plus 2 wild cards in D2 and the D3 NCAA Championships (college division prior to ’74) were invited to compete in the D1 NCAA until ’92, and it made a difference. Consider this abbreviated list of D2/D3 wrestlers who stood at the top of podium in d1: Rich Sanders (Portland St.), Stan Dziedzic (Slippery Rock), Wade Schalles (Clarion), Joe Gonzales (CSU-Bakersfield) Carlton Haselrig (Pitt-Johnstown 3x D2/D1 NCAA Champ) and D3 NCAA Champ Ken Mallory (Montclair St.). The powers that be fixed that in 1992. Go away, you have your own tournament! How different would the individual D1 results or the team scores have been, post ’92, if undefeated (131-0) 4x D2 NCAA champion Joey Davis (Notre Dame (OH), or any of the other 3x D2/D3 champions and the wild cards competed? Freshman and multiple time NCAA champions are not unique in a field of 78 or so. There were four freshman champs from ’68 to ’84 (approximately 350 schools), 13 in the last 16 years (approximately 77 schools), and 21 total since ’85. In ’78 they awarded 6 AA’s (1.65%) from a total field of 363. Now they award 8 AA’s (10.39%) from a total field of 77. Perhaps limit AA to top 6 or even top 3 or 4. Though largely no fault of their own, the estimated number of college wrestling programs at all collegiate levels has dwindled from 777 in 1972 to 273 total programs in 2025. Restricting the NCAA to only D1 since ‘92, along with the progressive rules changes, has diminished the sport. Wouldn’t allowing D2/D3, Junior College, and even NAIA into D1 add more suspense, depth, breadth, excitement, interest, and viewership and unite the entire wrestling community? There are some positive changes in the current rules. Riding time in OT has value and eliminates supposed unbiased officials from deciding victors via Referees Decision. Another positive change is the Double Elimination bracket. This type of consolation wrestle-back offers a truer outcome for those wrestlers eliminated in the championship bracket, and every single competitor other than the finalists receive a chance to come back and place. And probably the biggest bright spot today is that NCAA wrestling is televised on BTN, ESPN and other conference networks instead of only ABC Wide World of Sports as a 10 minute, once-a-year, heavily edited, side note. That has added to the amount of money wrestlers now command in college, and how nice to see a financial reward FINALLY for so much hard work in a sport that has few equals as far as physical challenges and the amount of work it takes to be an NCAA champion. My how things have changed.

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.

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.

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...