|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Alright, this post is for rule changes that would further promote and enhance wrestling at the collegiate level.
1) I cannot believe I am going to say it. Abolish riding time. Riding is largely boring in the format that we see it. This would be similar to no more lay and pray in MMA
2) 5 minute period, 1 minute break, three minute period, no time outs unless by referee. 5 minutes is a long time to stay in great position. FILA was onto something but it does not work for freestyle rules but it would for collegiate.
3) After a td, a clock would start that gave you 18 seconds on top to make something happen otherwise referee stands you up and no escape point. There is no longer any stalling assessed from top or bottom. Locking hands is a 2 point penalty.
4)Define stalling on your feet, so that there can be no misinterpretation.
4 rules that would change the outlook of wrestling and make it more fan friendly. It is more simple and easier to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
I like them. There may be un-intended consequences (there usually are) but the concept is good.
I especially like #3 because it makes the wrestlers responsible for action rather than the official. However, I suspect people will say that it will hurt guys going on to wrestle internationally.
I wonder how the rules for #4 would be defined?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Mark Niemann added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
#3... Why 18 seconds? I like it, don't get me wrong, but why not 15? or an even 20??? Seems more random than the others I mentioned. ...and it's not like you to be random.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Tony Bradberry added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
I'm sorry, but the elimination of mat wrestling is just stupid. If you do that let's just go to freestyle so we can compete internationally. As for the periods you think stalling is bad now? what do you think the last 2 minutes of your first period are going to be?
I don't like any of the changes to be honest. If we want to create more action and add to the sport go to freestyle. Watching guys get thrown and gut wrenched is far more exciting then what we have now. Shorten matches to create more action, I would say one four minute period. Overtime is leg clinch which would create action in overtime and shorten the sometimes very long overtime process.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Lou Demas added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Tony,
My wife says she loves me , bore my children and yet can not remember for to life me anytime told her ''I'm sorry but that part of your idea is Stupid'' and continued and open respectful conversation to say the least! Maybe you are more charismatic in person and people hang on your very word after you tell them an idea they had was stupid, however it doesn't cross over that well on an open forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Mark-
I like 18 because it is less than 20. 18 seconds is enough time to mount offense from the top. Time is a critical factor in all matches.Two seconds is a substantial amount of time. Anything between 15-20 would be acceptable. I chose 18 as a round up from 17.5.
Mat wrestling is uneventful in most matches I have seen and is more like watching whales hump. Time on top becomes a reward for a takedown. It is rewarded in two ways, if you get a rideout, then you are up 2-0 and have not been penalized for letting the guy escape.
Only those people who are truly talented from the top position will attempt to score otherwise it becomes a function of what everyone is doing anyway, which is riding. 1 minute riding time is antiquated, boring, and is truly about riding as opposed to turning and pinning.
College wrestling is about banging on someone until they get out of position. This does not get accomplished in shorter periods unless the opponent is a can.
A five minute period is like a 400yard dash in terms of intensity. There will be no place to hide once an acceptable stalling criteria is determined. Stalling will no longer be an issue. Points will be scored. I think you would find that be parties would be forced to engage because at least one guy is going to bring the intensity and break the others position.
The clinch is a forced position which is ok, but it occurs because no scoring takes place in the first place in a two minute period. Two minutes is a short time and you want to make it shorter? A five minute period rewards the athlete who is in shape.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Greg Debbe added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
I like 1 and 3. They kind of go together and I think riding time is a recipe for boring matches. Why the 2 point penalty for locking hands?
As for 2, I don't really have an opinion. It could be good but I am ok with the current periods.
How would you suggest defining stalling that would be clear to everyone where the line is? It seems to me without putting much thought into it that no matter how you define it, it would be open to interpretation and/or bias.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Bill Watson added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Rex
I like the principles here! However I have some suggestions.
I am not a wrestling guru, just demonstrating a humble opinion
1. Make takedowns worth one point, keep back points how they are now and conform to your theory on takedowns. This would force more strategy in wrestling and reward the risk taker. Granted it will also heavily penalize him but then agian he is a risk taker.
* I would also be for making each takedown after the second worth two, to compensate the difficulties of multiple takedowns
2. Keep riding time but change the criteria, you can only get riding time if you get a one count towards near fall points or more. And a stalling call on top also would eliminate accumulated time. Define stalling on top as 10 seconds without an attempted advancement of a given turning situation. IE raking a half and arm bar would suffice
3. Reversal is worth two, what better way to promote mat wrestling then to force action by changing the points variance between takedown and reversal. Especially if an escape has the same value as a takedown. Top and bottom skills would be critical however action still goes back to feet with a one point advantage at first. It would be later takedowns, that garner two points that will justly compensate active wrestlers, and allow tacticians to analyze situations without penalty.
4. Good luck defining stalling at the Neutral Position. Possibly something such as an amount of time without an attempt for advancement would be stalling. IE Sitting in a front headlock could be stalling on both guys, unless one demonstrates an attempt to break the lock or score from it.
Let me know the negative impacts these theories could have and I will attempt a rebutal.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Rex Holman added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
2pts for locked hands because the man on bottom needs to be motivated to initiate an escape. He now has another way of closing the gap.
Locking hands usually comes about by desperation to hold onto an existing position due to time. The bottom man must get to work right away and work furiously hard to get the point. That type of dynamic lends itself to the top man holding on by any means possible which predisposes him to locking hands. The top man may choose to kick the bottom man out if it gets to that point, but usually it is at a pivotal point of no return when the lock hands occurs. I think it makes the scenario more interesting and fair as escaping off bottom is no easy task.
Criteria for the stall; I envision something along the lines of the old "passivity rouge". For those of you unfamiliar. There use to be a circle between the edge and center which was the zone in freestyle wrestling. If you were in the zone with your back to the edge, you were stalling and you better work back to the center otherwise you were getting dinged.
Back to the stupid comment, I have spent my whole life engaged in wrestling from the 4th grade, I am now 40, I wrestled in 4 Junior National Tournaments, 4 NCAA DI Tournaments, 10 National Opens, and 2 Final Olympic Trials and did ok in all of them, I coached 5 years at tOSU and while admittedly we were not overall a good team we did produce 7 AAs in that span, I coached 5 years in the high school rank. I like to think about wrestling now as much as I use to enjoy competing. It is part of my daily ritual and my thoughts revolve and reflect wrestling.I typically don't open my mouth unless I have something worthwhile to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Tony Bradberry added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Lou-
I have a problem with the topic being ideas to grow wrestling when you are cutting out a fundamental aspect of wrestling. To eliminate mat wrestlng is to say all we want are the super athletes who are good on their feet. I would argue it takes more skill and practice to be good on top than your feet. I have seen many pure athletes be good on their feet but see very few of those pure athletes be good on top.
I'm tired of ohioans thinking that mat wrestling has no place in wrestling when the rest of the country seems to embrace it. Maybe there is a connection between our lack of top production and our refusal to embrace it?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Michael Rodriguez added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
|
Quote from Tony Bradberry's post:
|
|
"I have seen many pure athletes be good on their feet but see very few of those pure athletes be good on top."
|
I've seen a lot of "pure athletes" who are good both on their feet and on top.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
John Drumm added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Rex is always thinking outside the box. Anything to promote the sport.
I agree it would be nice to tweek the rules to make it more interesting from a fan's perspective. I like Bill Watson's idea of keeping riding time so long as the top wrestler actually gets at least turns the bottom guy for a 1 count.
Maybe tweek the rule so the turn and 1 count should be achieved by the top wrestler every 20 seconds or restart in neutral with erased riding time?
It would also be nice if these new proposed rules were applied in college open tourneys (maybe preseason) for some kind of trial/experimental period for proposed rulemaking and comments thereto from the coaches and other experts to the NCAA.
At the high school level, it would also be nice to have post season tourneys (i.e., HS Nationals) where HS grads could be introduced to these college rules to make the transition to the next level.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Jim Behrens added to this discussion on February 9, 2010
|
Okay, I see the ideas are starting to come but, as I said earlier, there can be consequenses that people don't think of.
For example:
"Keep riding time but change the criteria, you can only get riding time if you get a one count towards near fall points or more. "
This just begs for the return of the "cheap tilt" Why a one count? Why not two so that it would show that you are trying to actually score and not just tilt the opponent?
"And a stalling call on top also would eliminate accumulated time."
Please explain to me how one can, with certainty, tell the difference? Easy if the offensive man is off to the side and obviously working. Legs laced and applying a power half, not so easy to tell.
"Define stalling on top as 10 seconds without an attempted advancement of a given turning situation. IE raking a half and arm bar would suffice"
This is where is could get really ugly. What defines an "attempt"?
Just having a half and a bar doesn't mean you are actually trying to turn your opponent. It might but it might not. Did he come off the hips? I can tell you with 100% certainty that most often, in a pinning situation, I don't pay any attention to what was used. My concerns are that it is legal and that it is properly scored. The other issue, IMO, is that defining something like this as "10 seconds" is just asking for trouble. I have enough other things to worry about that concentrating on counting to 10 would cause problems. You really think a sharp coach wouldn't be using a stopwatch to time situations like this? Good or bad,I have to work with the clock in my head.
Keep in mind that I think rules changes can be a very good idea but you have to think of all the possible problems. Don't look at it from a particular view but try to think of what would be best for the sport. Remember that as a rule of thumb, simple is better.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
John Drumm added to this discussion on February 10, 2010
|
"Keep riding time but change the criteria, you can only get riding time if you get a one count towards near fall points or more. "
This just begs for the return of the "cheap tilt" Why a one count? Why not two so that it would show that you are trying to actually score and not just tilt the opponent?
Jim: Point well taken. From the bottom man's perspective, I would hope that the threat of having top guy's riding time prolonged with a "cheap tilt" would motivate the bottom guy to work harder for hand control off the whistle and/or use other means for an escape or reversal, as opposed to being a turtle on bottom. How many times have you heard a coach or fan yell to the bottom guy- "explode off the whistle" only to see bottom guy's "explosion" akin to a silent fart in the wind? Yet, I do see your point on the "cheap tilt' since it can still come out of nowhere.
Since 5 point TF requires back points, the same can be applied to riding time, so a two count does make sense.
As far as keeping time, the scorers table could have somebody assigned to riding time to verify whether the bottom guy was turned within the proper time interval. This would require them to pay attention to the official who, in turn, signals to the table.
1 minute is still 1 point riding time. If you turn your opponent within 1st 20 seconds, you get 20 seconds riding time, if not, clock resets to 0. If you continue past 20 seconds up to 40 seconds, you must turn your opponent within such time again to get 40 seconds, if not, you revert back to 20 seconds. If you continue past 40 seconds up to a minute, you must turn your opponent within such time again and ride out up to a minute, if not, you revert to 40 seconds. This rewards top guy for turning his opponent so he accumulates some riding time, motivates bottom guy, but also would require an attentive clock manager.
Riding time is now harder to obtain, but not totally eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Topic: New Rules to grow wrestling
Ben Golden added to this discussion on February 10, 2010
|
I didn't read all of these comments, so someone might have already said this.
I like the idea of pushing the rules to promote more action, but I'm concerned that restarting from neutral after 18 seconds of "not mounting an attack" could be a very subjective thing for the ref to determine. Where does mounting an attack from top begin? In many cases it begins with gaining wrist/hand control. Would that count as mounting an attack or would that count into the 18 seconds? Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
