An idea to fix the NCAA's broken TB system.

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

I think the original idea behind TBs was to make the bottom wrestler who could escape quicker (or at all) the winner. Which is fine except that the idea has been gamed, basterdized and made a joke of by the suporters of Folk bs stall-to-win wrestling crowd.

Instead of putting the "Ride-Outs" in back of SV, have it come first. Then have the OT Neutal Period be 2 minutes in length if one of the wrestlers is leading coming into the period (SV if the wrestlers enter Neutral OT tied)... and continue as SV without interruption or length if the wrestlers are tied after 2 minutes (first score wins). Furthermore, require a stall call to be made after 45 consecutive seconds of no "Offensive Activity" by only one of the wrestlers - a wrestler consistently taking ground, while the other wrestler is consistently giving ground (wrestling the edge, etc....) will be deemed "Offensive Activity". If there is a shot that turns into a scramble by the wrestler who owns all of the Offensive Activity before the 45 seconds expires and the scramble is stopped by OB or stalemate after the 45 seconds, the Stall Call is made after the stoppage.

This will stop the nonsense wrestling stall-to-win bs we have seen in the TB periods which is a ridiculous way to determine a wrestling match, but would still give the better mat wrestler a significant advantage towards winning in OT.

 

[CowbellMan]

We need another stalling rule? 45 seconds of what you describe is largely already covered in the rules, it just needs to be called.

 

[jack66]

If refs called stalling the 1st 7 minutes, there wouldn't be so many matches that go to TB.

As long as wrestlers are allowed to use obvious stalling techniques, there will be wrestlers taking advantage.

 

[SkiSkiSki]

Other options: Force both wrestlers to start down for one of the two TB periods. Make all stalling in TB periods a point regardless of how many stall calls the wrestlers have previously had in the match.

 

[Sullivan]

I'd apply freestyle rules: The winner is determined by criteria: 1) Highest value of holds (e.g., a 4-point move beats a 2-point move), 2) Last point(s) scored.

 

[OldMatCoach]

Not on the same subject, but a Totally off the wall concept scoring change idea, I think would make matches and especially duals much more exciting. Every point a wrestler scores is a team point in a dual. For example one wrestler wins 8-3. The winning wrestler's team score is eight, the losers is three. Bonus points are not necessary in this method. Falls, DQ and Def. are worth maybe 8? Thus winning 2-1 in OT only gains your team a single point instead of three so is less advantage to wrestle that way. The more action, the more team points. Active wrestling is rewarded (Imagine what MM could rack up!) Stalling calls without any prior warning subtract points 1-1-2-5-DQ. Add a push out point like freestyle. Riding time stays the same. Nearfall goes back to 2-3. Takedowns might go back to 2 to encourage more reversals. Lots of variables. Just popped into my head after watching Luke get stalled out and some boring TB matches where nothing happened at all until the TB.

 

[Nitlion1986]

Get refs to call stalling? We can't even get referees to agree that a takedown with less than 5 seconds of hard controll is even a takedown.
Stalling needs be described in massive objective detail then at rules interpretation meetings the demand to call stalling needs to be emphasized hard. It also needs to be part of the evaluation process.

 

[RoarLions1]

Let em settle it on their feet, no tiebreaker at all. First score after the initial 7 minutes of wrestling wins. Too bad if they get tired and it impacts their next bout in a tournament, or pushes a dual beyond two hours or whatever is allotted (sometimes tv allots 2 and a half hours). Just one mans 2 cents.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

I'd apply freestyle rules: The winner is determined by criteria: 1) Highest value of holds (e.g., a 4-point move beats a 2-point move), 2) Last point(s) scored.

Yes, this is not a bad idea either - criteria: 1) highest value move scored, 2) # of highest value moves scored if both wrestlers have highest value score. That criteria continues to second highest value score, then number.... etc... If wrestlers tie on all those criteria, I'd go with wrestler with less Stall Calls first, then 1st TD (last point scored is more applicable in Free because you don't have the vaguery of the coin flip to determine who gets choice regarding mat wrestling). But in order for this Criteria to work effectively in matches that end 0-0 or 1-1 and reward the more aggressive offensive wrestler as they are supposed to, Mat Officials have to be diligent about calling Stalling on purely defensive wrestling designed to shorten matches (especially in Neutral as many of these matches end 1-1 with 6 minutes or more of scoreless Neutral wrestling and no Stall calls which is utterly ridiculous). The basic problem is that Folk Officials consistently fail to call "passivity" ("Stalling" in Folk) as the spirit of the rules of the seminal sport of all forms of wrestling call for. If they called "Stalling" as they are supposed to (i.e., IN FAVOR of the more aggressive/offensive wrestler and AGAINST the more defensive wrestler who is failing to carry their share of the offensive action), you wouldn't have so many 1-1 matches that ultimately burn another 2 minutes of Neutral with no scoring or stall calls in SV and go to TBs (IOW, you have many 1-1 matches that feature 8 minutes ++ of Neural wrestling without any scoring in Neutral after the SV Period and get determined by silly TB rules which is insane to have that much Neutral wrestling with no Passivity Points assessed against the more defensive wrestler).... So while the Criteria would work if Folk Officials called passivity and tactics designed to shorten matches and mute scoring, the sad reality is that the Criteria won't work because Folk Officials are legendary for refusing to enforce passivity rules which promotes, and rewards, defensive wrestling and stalling tactics aimed at shortening matches and muting scoring to give the less effective Offensive Wrestler a "shot at winning"... - this is the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE wrestler that the Mat Official is supposed to reward, but the governing bodies of Folk Wrestling refuse to do anything about this bs Officiating.

 

[CarolinaFan1]

I'd apply freestyle rules: The winner is determined by criteria: 1) Highest value of holds (e.g., a 4-point move beats a 2-point move), 2) Last point(s) scored.

I like idea of criteria deciding at end of 7 minutes if possible. I would suggest instead of last point scored, maybe (1) same as you/freestlye - highest value point move, (2) most takedowns, (3) first takedown if takedown totals are equal, (4) least stalling calls, (5) first point scored. If 0-0 at end of 7 minutes, then unlimited SV until first point is scored.

 

[Corby2]

I say it should be the refs decision after 7 min he just picks a winner. Lee Kemp says F that. Kemp lost on a refs decision his freshman year in the NCAA finals which kept him from being a 4 timer

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

I like idea of criteria deciding at end of 7 minutes if possible. I would suggest instead of last point scored, maybe (1) same as you/freestlye - highest value point move, (2) most takedowns, (3) first takedown if takedown totals are equal, (4) least stalling calls, (5) first point scored. If 0-0 at end of 7 minutes, then unlimited SV until first point is scored.

That criteria would work IF, and ONLY IF, the Mat Officials are diligent about calling passivity as they are supposed to be. You have tons of matches that go into TBs 1-1 where 90% of the matches time-wise are constituted of scoreless Neutral wrestling (8+ minutes) with no Passivity Points docked to either wrestler - often no passivity calls of any kind in Neutral. That's just beyond insane and why the Criteria won't work in regards to these 1-1 matches -- the basic problem is that many, if not most, Folk Officials REWARD the diametrically wrong wrestler and REWARD tactics designed to shorten matches and mute scoring to give the less effective Offensive wrestler "a shot at winning", when the Official is supposed to be PENALIZING these tactics and REWARDING the more aggressive/offensive wrestler.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Other options: Force both wrestlers to start down for one of the two TB periods. Make all stalling in TB periods a point regardless of how many stall calls the wrestlers have previously had in the match.

Actually, they should eliminate the whole 1st Stall Call is a "warning" bs.... it minimizes the illegality of stall tactics, which should not be minimized - quite the opposite in fact (this minimization of passivity by Folk Governing Bodies and Officials IS THE PROBLEM). By looking the other way and ignoring blatant passivity violations (and minimizing the infraction with "a warning" and no real penalty), they encourage, and effectively reward, the abuse of the rules with wrestling tactics geared toward shortening matches and muting scoring.... to give a wrestler who is at a significant Offensive disadvantage a chance to win via TBs. There should be no "Warning", you violate passivity rules - you should be dinged a point; it is a very serious infraction and should be treated that way. You don't get "warnings" for illegal holds such as "locking hands" and you shouldn't get a warning for blatant stalling. If you want to leave DQ after 5 calls make it Point, Point, 2 Points, 2 points, DQ.

 

[SRATH]

You cannot win without either a takedown or near fall points.

So you can't go 0-0 into the second period, ride the guy to secure the riding time point, give up the escape, then reverse roles in period 3 and one of the guys wins 2-1 with riding time being the deciding factor. It is boring and I hate guys who ride and don't try to turn. Sure, a guy like Carter was a pro at this.

I hear lots of folks talk about the stalling rules....... they never seem to get called.

If you go to OT, 4 minutes. If still tied, first TD wins based on criteria. If it is tied and both guys have NF points, then first NF points win.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

You cannot win without either a takedown or near fall points.

So you can't go 0-0 into the second period, ride the guy to secure the riding time point, give up the escape, then reverse roles in period 3 and one of the guys wins 2-1 with riding time being the deciding factor. It is boring and I hate guys who ride and don't try to turn. Sure, a guy like Carter was a pro at this.

I hear lots of folks talk about the stalling rules....... they never seem to get called.

If you go to OT, 4 minutes. If still tied, first TD wins based on criteria. If it is tied and both guys have NF points, then first NF points win.

No doubt Carter knew how to win matches where the other wrestler refused to wrestle in Neutral. but in these matches, Carter was always the more aggressive wrestler - always taking ground and his opponent was always backing up.... breaking ties and backing up..... dancing back and circling if not engaged..... wrestling the edge..... etc..... If the Mat Officials called the nonsense and bs passivity tactics in Neutral, Carter would not have had to rely on the scenario you laid out. Guys that came to wrestle in Neutral against Carter (instead of the bs passivity and stalling techniques used to shorten matches) also lost to Carter who was always the aggressor in Neutral. Starocci won his 5 NCAA Championships against Michael Kemerer, Mekhi Lewis, Mikey Labriola and Parker Keckheisen (those opponents made it to a combined 8 NCAA Finals and won 2 NCAA Championships). To imply that Starocci initiated the stalling techniques in Neutral (or used Neutral Stalling as a strategy and path to victory) is incorrect and just plain wrong imho. It just isn't so - Starocci was more than willing to wrestle in Neutral, but when his opponent was only interested in shortening the match and stalling in Neutral, Carter wasn't going to take stupid shots when he knew he could simply beat the Neutral Staller on the mat. IOW, he wasn't going to take stupid risks than put his chances of winning potentially at risk, when he knew he didn't have to as he had a significant advantage on the mat.

 

[WV lion]

I like idea of criteria deciding at end of 7 minutes if possible. I would suggest instead of last point scored, maybe (1) same as you/freestlye - highest value point move, (2) most takedowns, (3) first takedown if takedown totals are equal, (4) least stalling calls, (5) first point scored. If 0-0 at end of 7 minutes, then unlimited SV until first point is scored.

Near fall should trump anything else. Object of wrestling is to pin your opponent

 

[SRATH]

No doubt Carter knew how to win matches where the other wrestler refused to wrestle in Neutral. but in these matches, Carter was always the more aggressive wrestler - always taking ground and his opponent was always backing up.... breaking ties and backing up..... dancing back and circling if not engaged..... wrestling the edge..... etc..... If the Mat Officials called the nonsense and bs passivity tactics in Neutral, Carter would not have had to rely on the scenario you laid out. Guys that came to wrestle in Neutral against Carter (instead of the bs passivity and stalling techniques used to shorten matches) also lost to Carter who was always the aggressor in Neutral. Starocci won his 5 NCAA Championships against Michael Kemerer, Mekhi Lewis, Mikey Labriola and Parker Keckheisen (those opponents made it to a combined 8 NCAA Finals and won 2 NCAA Championships). To imply that Starocci initiated the stalling techniques in Neutral (or used Neutral Stalling as a strategy and path to victory) is incorrect and just plain wrong imho. It just isn't so - Starocci was more than willing to wrestle in Neutral, but when his opponent was only interested in shortening the match and stalling in Neutral, Carter wasn't going to take stupid shots when he knew he could simply beat the Neutral Staller on the mat. IOW, he wasn't going to take stupid risks than put his chances of winning potentially at risk, when he knew he didn't have to as he had a significant advantage on the mat.

Ok. You accurately describe what every PSU wrestling fan knows. Carter found a way to win........within the rules. I never said or even implied Carter stalled....but clearly I hit a nerve with you, somehow. Frankly, under my proposed rules, any aggressive wrestler would benefit. Those guys who go get that first TD would be rewarded. That sounds exactly like Carter.

 

[RBOld]

I like this but keep it simple. Do ride-outs first then SV. That way the kid who is losing will be incentivized to try and score. The kid with the lead on RT won't be able to stall for two minutes w/o getting dinged a couple times and losing.

 

[CaveLion]

I like a hybrid criteria/OT approach. Establish criteria that determines who is winning at the end of regulation. Then wrestle the same 2 minute OT. Both guys know who has criteria if there is no scoring.

Still doesn’t prevent a guy from stalling in OT, but 2 minutes is an awfully long time stall when everyone is looking for it.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Ok. You accurately describe what every PSU wrestling fan knows. Carter found a way to win........within the rules. I never said or even implied Carter stalled....but clearly I hit a nerve with you, somehow. Frankly, under my proposed rules, any aggressive wrestler would benefit. Those guys who go get that first TD would be rewarded. That sounds exactly like Carter.

Apologize, I thought you were implying Carter used passivity tactics as a means to victory. The basic problem is the Folk Governing Bodies and Mat Officials failing to enforce rules against the intentional use of passivity tactics as a means to shorten a match and mute scoring, especially in Neutral and also actively relaying that passivity tactics ("Stalling" in Folk) are not a serious infraction of the rules by giving only a "warning" on the first call and even when they call make one call (again, a "Warning") rarely following up the call (which is usually a mandatory call) despite the fact that the offending wrestler just keeps right on doing, and implementing the same tactics they'd been doing prior to the call (backing up, breaking ties and pushing. off while back-pedaling, dancing and circling backwards to maintain distance.... backing to edge and edge wrestling..... etc....).

The fact that announcers say stuff like - "he has a stalling to burn", tells you precisely how out of control the abuse of the passivity rules are in Folk Wrestling. This type of thing tells you the powers that be, think it's a perfectly acceptable strategy to ignore the passivity rules as a strategy to winning - it is utterly absurd to have intentional and blatant infractions of the passivity rules made to be okay with a wink and a nod, which is what is being done with this "Stall Warning" bs. Why should you get a "Warning" when you're blatantly (and most often intentionally) violating the passivity rules? Do you get "Warnings" when you violate "illegal hold" rules? Giving a "Warning" is a perfect example of rewarding the diametric opposite wrestler that is supposed to be rewarded for a passivity violation - why do we see wrestler after wrestler intentionally violate Stalling Rules as a means toward victory because "they have a Stalling Violation to give"??? If it isn't benefitting the violating wrestler, then why on earth are they doing it INTENTIONALLY as even the announcers routinely admit?

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

I like this but keep it simple. Do ride-outs first then SV. That way the kid who is losing will be incentivized to try and score. The kid with the lead on RT won't be able to stall for two minutes w/o getting dinged a couple times and losing.

Yes, that's what I said above. If the wrestlers leave "Rideouts" still tied (either neither escaped or both escape), then it becomes untimed Sudden Victory in Neutral. However, if one wrestler escapes in "Rideouts", but the other wrestler does not (or one gets a reversal versus the others escape, etc....) such that one wrestler has a lead after "Rideouts", then the Neutral OT Period is set at 2 minutes. Only if it becomes tied at the expiration of 2 minutes does it again become untimed SV without any break in the action.

 

[HwtsRgr8]

I've been saying two 30sec periods first for years. First to score in regulation gets choice of position (where ever he feels he is best either up-down- neutral ) sudden victory after that with today's style ride out to end it all with all OT riding time to determine eventual winner if still tied.


Today's OT put the TD as the determining score while my example lets your best position win your match !

 

[RBOld]

Yes, that's what I said above. If the wrestlers leave "Rideouts" still tied (either neither escaped or both escape), then it becomes untimed Sudden Victory in Neutral. However, if one wrestler escapes in "Rideouts", but the other wrestler does not (or one gets a reversal versus the others escape, etc....) such that one wrestler has a lead after "Rideouts", then the Neutral OT Period is set at 2 minutes. Only if it becomes tied at the expiration of 2 minutes does it again become untimed SV without any break in the action.

But I'd have RT decide it if they both get out. If neither get out go back to TB after the 2nd SV and then back to neutral. The whole point is that it shouldn't be decided solely on RT w/o another 2 minutes in neutral.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

But I'd have RT decide it if they both get out. If neither get out go back to TB after the 2nd SV and then back to neutral. The whole point is that it shouldn't be decided solely on RT w/o another 2 minutes in neutral.

Yes, agreed. If both escape, the wrestler that took more time (usually by less than 10 seconds) should have two minutes on his feet to try and win before you determine it on such minimal RT Advantage. So yes, most important part is putting the OT Neutral Period after the Rideouts, not before them.

 

[GOLFNIT85]

Let's all face it, we laughed at the time but Stall camp is a real thing

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Let's all face it, we laughed at the time but Stall camp is a real thing

Stall Camp is a very real thing (not a joke) - it was started by two brothers (forget their name). The premise was "Conservation of energy", mitigating risk of shots or counters (i.e., it also taught edge wrestling as a fundamental Neutral technique), stressed Defense as a way to winning over Offense and taught being comfortable in low scoring matches.

Looked it up... it was initiated by David and Derrick Booth and they advertised it as a "Conservationist" approach as an alternative to an Aggressive Offensive approach to victory. Many began calling it the "Manatee Style".

 

[Anon1769780538]

I can’t understand why anyone would want criteria to determine the winner when overtime has some of the most exciting wrestling you will see. I don’t like the idea of injecting freestyle rules in to folk style,just my 2 cents.

 

[PSUeng]

The issue with criteria like back points, 4-point moves, most take downs, is that those matches very seldom go to overtime. And if they do go to overtime, those tied wrestlers were already active or they would not have tied up the match.

Maybe it should be one-minute periods, until we have a winner.

If they keep the ride outs, then both wrestlers must take bottom. No riding a guy for 3 seconds and then taking neutral instead of bottom, forcing the other wrestler to take you down.

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

The issue with criteria like back points, 4-point moves, most take downs, is that those matches very seldom go to overtime. And if they do go to overtime, those tied wrestlers were already active or they would not have tied up the match.

Maybe it should be one-minute periods, until we have a winner.

If they keep the ride outs, then both wrestlers must take bottom. No riding a guy for 3 seconds and then taking neutral instead of bottom, forcing the other wrestler to take you down.

Exactly, matches with significant scoring and offense rarely end up in OT. The most common score in OT matches seems to be 1-1 and the winning score is too often 2-1 with the winning point coming on RT ADV. We see this type of match way, way too often at Nationals because many use stalling as a means to an upset via internationally shortening the match and muting scoring via blatant Neutral Stalling.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

Let em settle it on their feet, no tiebreaker at all. First score after the initial 7 minutes of wrestling wins. Too bad if they get tired and it impacts their next bout in a tournament, or pushes a dual beyond two hours or whatever is allotted (sometimes tv allots 2 and a half hours). Just one mans 2 cents.

I like the simplicity of this. I would venture that it would be very rare to see the SV period run very long as a wrestler who knows his gas tank is running low will most likely push the pace early in SV knowing if he can't get a quick TD then his conditioning will fail him eventually. With the current rules any wrestler with good conditioning knows they can slow the match down for the two minutes of SV to take their chance in rideouts. @RoarLions1 , I know your name pulls weight in the wrestling community so . . .

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

Let em settle it on their feet, no tiebreaker at all. First score after the initial 7 minutes of wrestling wins. Too bad if they get tired and it impacts their next bout in a tournament, or pushes a dual beyond two hours or whatever is allotted (sometimes tv allots 2 and a half hours). Just one mans 2 cents.

Would be in favor of this as well.... Let's face it "30 Second Rideouts" are dumb - what exactly do they prove? (One guy escaping in 15 seconds proves he deserved to win over a guy that took a couple extra seconds to escape??? Especially when the winning wrestler had to use an illegal Stalling Technique [such as pushing his opponent off the mat after bottom wrestler stands to maintain top position and get a restart to extend their Stall-Ride aimed at nothing and certainly not an attempt to score from top.... or hanging on below the waist for a 5 Count "because they had the illegal Stalling Penalty to give"?????.... etc....). Many of these wrestlers make it to Rideouts against better offensive wrestlers by intentionally Stalling their @$$es off in Neutral for more than 8 minutes of Neutral wrestling.... so they can get to TBs in a 1-1 tie and have a shot given the goofy criteria NCAA wrestling uses (i.e., RT Advantage of a couple seconds in a silly bronco-riding "30 Second" Periods not aimed at attempting to score in any way and encourage the use of illegal Stalling Techniques to maintain top-position "if you have the Illegal Stalls to give"??? Huh? What?).

Just a stupid way to determine a winner and has nothing to do with determining the more deserving wrestler. An untimed SV - first score wins (including Stalling Penalty Points) - is a way better way to determine the winner especially because it will force the primary Neutral Staller to start wrestling as they can no longer create a path to victory using their Neutral Stalling techniques.

 

[tullfan68]

If refs called stalling the 1st 7 minutes, there wouldn't be so many matches that go to TB.

As long as wrestlers are allowed to use obvious stalling techniques, there will be wrestlers taking advantage.

yea the ref called Ferr for stalling well on one knee and he didn't care just continued the ref should have kept hitting him!

 

[tullfan68]

why do refs almost always call a stall on the guy getting pushed out.if they pusher is not attempting a td then he the one stalling!

 

[a_mshaffer]

why do refs almost always call a stall on the guy getting pushed out.if they pusher is not attempting a td then he the one stalling!

Thought that was the rule as well and should be. Tough call when one has a good underhook established

 

[JoePaMajorCFBrecord409Ws]

why do refs almost always call a stall on the guy getting pushed out.if they pusher is not attempting a td then he the one stalling!

That's not true at all - when someone is taking ground, they're trying to force you to wrestle.... i.e. push back rather than just defensively just keep backing away. By forcing you to react and fight back (i.e., attempt to get back toward the center of the mat - which the backing wrestler is required to do under the rules) the more aggressive wrestler is attempting to set up an offensive move (a slide by, a lat-drop, a Fireman's Carry, etc., etc., etc....). This is why backing out of the outer ring is an automatic point in Freestyle - because you are refusing to work toward Center Mat which is preventing Offensive Action - an Offensive Move that could occur if you pushed back at all cost to not give up a point for backing OB.

There is no way you wrestled if you really believe that the wrestler forcibly taking ground is the "stalling" wrestler and that the wrestler backing and retreating to the edge and continuing to GIVE GROUND is the "non-stalling" wrestler. That's just utter nonsense and emblematic of someone who has not wrestled - the notion that someone has no choice but to back up and retreat from the center circle in Neutral all the way to the outer ring and then continue to give ground until they're fully OB is just nonsensical. The only time it is Stalling is not in Neutral - it's when a Top-Wrestler is in a rear-standing position after Bottom-Wrestler has stood up and the Top-Wrestler pushes and walks them OB.

 

[vhsalum]

If refs called stalling the 1st 7 minutes, there wouldn't be so many matches that go to TB.

As long as wrestlers are allowed to use obvious stalling techniques, there will be wrestlers taking advantage.

This.

there are no hard/fast/set words about “stalling” in FS. UWW is just actually forcing refs to make a call.

No points on the board? SOMEONE is less active. Hit em

Someone is avoiding wrestling? Hit em

going out of bounds to avoid an attack? Hit em

RUNNING AWAY IN THE LAST 30? Hit em

THEY DO IT AGAIN?!?! HIT EM

get rid of the dumb out of bounds “action” calls and actually care about the product and the sport.

oh. And get rid of the warning. First stall is a point. And make it apparent - if there is no scoring in a 45 second frame? SOMEONE is getting hit.

 

[vhsalum]

Oh. And criteria.

last point scored. Make it simple. Make it exciting.

 

[jack66]

Oh. And criteria.

last point scored. Make it simple. Make it exciting.

I like the free-style rule on this—the wrestler with the highest-value move is the 1st criteria.

 

[vhsalum]

I like the free-style rule on this. The last major move (TD or turn) trumps a one-point move, like an escape or riding time.

KISS

just think it’s a better product for fans. Easier for everyone, including the athlete.

Personally, I love the higher value criteria like UWW, but I’m also a crazy person.

if a guy is up 4-3, and knows giving up the escape will cause him to lose the match - that’s going to be pretty exciting

 

[PSU Mike]

I like the free-style rule on this—the wrestler with the highest-value move is the 1st criteria.

I think it’s fundamentally different in folk with 4 coming only from NF. And to those that say the object is to pin and NF is a proxy for that, well tilts with low chance of a fall probably make up 50% of NF4.

Then again how many bouts with NF4 go to OT?