The 3-Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change

[Wrestleknownothing]

50% more points should be 50% more fun.

But is it working? Does it incentivize more action and risk taking?

The 3 Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change | Wrestling.Guru

The year was 2023 and there was a plague upon the land of folkstyle wrestling. Scoring at the NCAA tournament was down - a lot. After hitting a near-term pe ...

wrestling.guru

 

[BWFight]

50% more points should be 50% more fun.

But is it working? Does it incentivize more action and risk taking?

The 3 Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change | Wrestling.Guru

The year was 2023 and there was a plague upon the land of folkstyle wrestling. Scoring at the NCAA tournament was down - a lot. After hitting a near-term pe ...

wrestling.guru

Great analysis wrestknowsomething

 

[Headlock]

50% more points should be 50% more fun.

But is it working? Does it incentivize more action and risk taking?

The 3 Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change | Wrestling.Guru

The year was 2023 and there was a plague upon the land of folkstyle wrestling. Scoring at the NCAA tournament was down - a lot. After hitting a near-term pe ...

wrestling.guru

Exceptional analysis. It would seem that complex issues such as the one in question, incentivizing scoring, isn't amenable to any one step fix. Rather, making a carefully considered change and then measuring several years of responding data provides a new departure point. An obvious second action is needed to ameliorate the unintended consequence of stalling. You do great work, my friend. Thx for sharing.

 

[Stevej]

50% more points should be 50% more fun.

But is it working? Does it incentivize more action and risk taking?

The 3 Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change | Wrestling.Guru

The year was 2023 and there was a plague upon the land of folkstyle wrestling. Scoring at the NCAA tournament was down - a lot. After hitting a near-term pe ...

wrestling.guru

Thank you for your absolutely brilliant work and sharing it with us! Really well thought out and explained!

 

[pawrstlersinpa]

This article just irritates me. From the get-go, I (I, here, is not an exclusive club. I recognize there were others.) said, "This isn't going to help." Then, we had one year's worth of data, and I (the Naysayer Club) said, "This isn't helping," while the original supporters on here said, "Ohhhh, I think it's great. I think it's creating more action. It's so much more exciting if the guys who haven't been offensive for seven minutes can suddenly score THREE points, instead of TWO in the Two Minute Overtime Dance. Oh, how grand." Data be damned. Then, we had another year's worth of data, and now another. So, what do we have?

Those guys who somehow thought yelling "THREEEEEE" from the stands, or their living room couches, was so much better than yelling "TWOOOO," just sit here and pretend like we didn't even read what we read. We have a bunch of whistle-swallowers and Officials Against Accoutability. You know who you are, like the refs who couldn't see stalling if it jumped up and kicked them in the knee, and the refs that go over to the Self Validation Table, pretend to look at a replay, then come back to the mat, and say, "Nope, my call was great. Couldn't be better. Thanks for asking." Who is willing to admit they were wrong about the three-point takedown? That the product on the mat is not better now than it was three years ago? That something else has to change? Never mind. We'll let it be rhetorical.

I know, my answer is easier said than done, but we've got to get back to calling stalling the way it was called back in the day. Yes, I know, get off my lawn. But, the No-call Stall Patrol has got to be called out on this. The "Let 'Em Work" guys, the ones who even tell the wrestlers, "Hey, work, or I'm going to think about calling stalling for the next minute, and hope the period ends," without ever really thinking about calling stalling have got to go. With the exception of McGowan, you hang three or four stall calls on a guy, and they know that their next step backwards is going to make them walk off in stall-out DQ shame (maybe there should be a stall DQ dunce cap), surely, the majority of guys will at least attempt to stand their ground, or move forward. The Bureau of Sustained Inaction has got to end.

/rant over, until @Wrestleknownothing posts this data next year, at which time I'll have more vitriol for the Anti-activity Alliance

Apologies to referees who do call stalling aggressively.

 

[Cstroke]

Well I love the change, nothing to do with more or less action.. I just love that when watching a Hawks match 3 times an evening when a Hawk wrestler shoots and scores the entire place erupts in Twwwwoooooooooo... then sheepishly hold up 3...

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

This article just irritates me. From the get-go, I (I, here, is not an exclusive club. I recognize there were others.) said, "This isn't going to help." Then, we had one year's worth of data, and I (the Naysayer Club) said, "This isn't helping," while the original supporters on here said, "Ohhhh, I think it's great. I think it's creating more action. It's so much more exciting if the guys who haven't been offensive for seven minutes can suddenly score THREE points, instead of TWO in the Two Minute Overtime Dance. Oh, how grand." Data be damned. Then, we had another year's worth of data, and now another. So, what do we have?

Those guys who somehow thought yelling "THREEEEEE" from the stands, or their living room couches, was so much better than yelling "TWOOOO," just sit here and pretend like we didn't even read what we read. We have a bunch of whistle-swallowers and Officials Against Accoutability. You know who you are, like the refs who couldn't see stalling if it jumped up and kicked them in the knee, and the refs that go over to the Self Validation Table, pretend to look at a replay, then come back to the mat, and say, "Nope, my call was great. Couldn't be better. Thanks for asking." Who is willing to admit they were wrong about the three-point takedown? That the product on the mat is not better now than it was three years ago? That something else has to change? Never mind. We'll let it be rhetorical.

I know, my answer is easier said than done, but we've got to get back to calling stalling the way it was called back in the day. Yes, I know, get off my lawn. But, the No-call Stall Patrol has got to be called out on this. The "Let 'Em Work" guys, the ones who even tell the wrestlers, "Hey, work, or I'm going to think about calling stalling for the next minute, and hope the period ends," without ever really thinking about calling stalling have got to go. With the exception of McGowan, you hang three or four stall calls on a guy, and they know that their next step backwards is going to make them walk off in stall-out DQ shame (maybe there should be a stall DQ dunce cap), surely, the majority of guys will at least attempt to stand their ground, or move forward. The Bureau of Sustained Inaction has got to end.

/rant over, until @Wrestleknownothing posts this data next year, at which time I'll have more vitriol for the Anti-activity Alliance

Apologies to referees who do call stalling aggressively.

Can you apologize to your family for me?

 

[jack66]

Great analysis. I like the 3-point TD, but it hasn't had the effect I expected.

The biggest issue with Folk is that wrestlers are allowed to stall. There would be no need to change the rules if refs had the balls to call it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The Delgado and Heil rules were positive changes; maybe it's time for a Ferrari rule.

 

[NittanyLion84]

This article just irritates me. From the get-go, I (I, here, is not an exclusive club. I recognize there were others.) said, "This isn't going to help." Then, we had one year's worth of data, and I (the Naysayer Club) said, "This isn't helping," while the original supporters on here said, "Ohhhh, I think it's great. I think it's creating more action. It's so much more exciting if the guys who haven't been offensive for seven minutes can suddenly score THREE points, instead of TWO in the Two Minute Overtime Dance. Oh, how grand." Data be damned. Then, we had another year's worth of data, and now another. So, what do we have?

Those guys who somehow thought yelling "THREEEEEE" from the stands, or their living room couches, was so much better than yelling "TWOOOO," just sit here and pretend like we didn't even read what we read. We have a bunch of whistle-swallowers and Officials Against Accoutability. You know who you are, like the refs who couldn't see stalling if it jumped up and kicked them in the knee, and the refs that go over to the Self Validation Table, pretend to look at a replay, then come back to the mat, and say, "Nope, my call was great. Couldn't be better. Thanks for asking." Who is willing to admit they were wrong about the three-point takedown? That the product on the mat is not better now than it was three years ago? That something else has to change? Never mind. We'll let it be rhetorical.

I know, my answer is easier said than done, but we've got to get back to calling stalling the way it was called back in the day. Yes, I know, get off my lawn. But, the No-call Stall Patrol has got to be called out on this. The "Let 'Em Work" guys, the ones who even tell the wrestlers, "Hey, work, or I'm going to think about calling stalling for the next minute, and hope the period ends," without ever really thinking about calling stalling have got to go. With the exception of McGowan, you hang three or four stall calls on a guy, and they know that their next step backwards is going to make them walk off in stall-out DQ shame (maybe there should be a stall DQ dunce cap), surely, the majority of guys will at least attempt to stand their ground, or move forward. The Bureau of Sustained Inaction has got to end.

/rant over, until @Wrestleknownothing posts this data next year, at which time I'll have more vitriol for the Anti-activity Alliance

Apologies to referees who do call stalling aggressively.

I don’t know how Refs are evaluated, maybe someone here does. Someone mentioned during this NCAA tournament that coaches participate in evaluating Refs, if that’s true, you’re having the same coaches that are teaching their wrestlers to stall, evaluating the Refs. If true, no wonder the Refs swallow their whistles. Here again I don’t know if the above is true, but if it is, the entire process of evaluating the Refs needs to be overhauled.

 

[pawrstlersinpa]

Can you apologize to your family for me?

Nobody is here right now, including the dogs, one of which is puntable. So, I have a few hours to settle down.

 

[Cstroke]

 

[Misalorales]

This article just irritates me. From the get-go, I (I, here, is not an exclusive club. I recognize there were others.) said, "This isn't going to help." Then, we had one year's worth of data, and I (the Naysayer Club) said, "This isn't helping," while the original supporters on here said, "Ohhhh, I think it's great. I think it's creating more action. It's so much more exciting if the guys who haven't been offensive for seven minutes can suddenly score THREE points, instead of TWO in the Two Minute Overtime Dance. Oh, how grand." Data be damned. Then, we had another year's worth of data, and now another. So, what do we have?

Those guys who somehow thought yelling "THREEEEEE" from the stands, or their living room couches, was so much better than yelling "TWOOOO," just sit here and pretend like we didn't even read what we read. We have a bunch of whistle-swallowers and Officials Against Accoutability. You know who you are, like the refs who couldn't see stalling if it jumped up and kicked them in the knee, and the refs that go over to the Self Validation Table, pretend to look at a replay, then come back to the mat, and say, "Nope, my call was great. Couldn't be better. Thanks for asking." Who is willing to admit they were wrong about the three-point takedown? That the product on the mat is not better now than it was three years ago? That something else has to change? Never mind. We'll let it be rhetorical.

I know, my answer is easier said than done, but we've got to get back to calling stalling the way it was called back in the day. Yes, I know, get off my lawn. But, the No-call Stall Patrol has got to be called out on this. The "Let 'Em Work" guys, the ones who even tell the wrestlers, "Hey, work, or I'm going to think about calling stalling for the next minute, and hope the period ends," without ever really thinking about calling stalling have got to go. With the exception of McGowan, you hang three or four stall calls on a guy, and they know that their next step backwards is going to make them walk off in stall-out DQ shame (maybe there should be a stall DQ dunce cap), surely, the majority of guys will at least attempt to stand their ground, or move forward. The Bureau of Sustained Inaction has got to end.

/rant over, until @Wrestleknownothing posts this data next year, at which time I'll have more vitriol for the Anti-activity Alliance

Apologies to referees who do call stalling aggressively.

Honest question: When guys say "call stalling like they used to", what era are you referring to? I'm a newbie compared to most. Started wrestling around 08, started watching college wrestling as it was available in the early years of Cael's start at PSU. I don't feel like there's ever been a time that I've been around wrestling where people said " ya, they call stalling like they should" or where a common sentiment was not " they gotta force action more, call stalling more"...I'd say after decades of bashing our heads against the wall that is referees swallowing whistles we just may have to acknowledge the unrealistic expectation that is, for whatever reason. Because I'm almost certain we will never actually think stalling is called enough. There has to be other answers as well..Not the 3 point takedown. That was never gonna work for creating less stalling. Is fun to see PSU tech everyone though...

 

[pawrstlersinpa]

Honest question: When guys say "call stalling like they used to", what era are you referring to? I'm a newbie compared to most. Started wrestling around 08, started watching college wrestling as it was available in the early years of Cael's start at PSU. I don't feel like there's ever been a time that I've been around wrestling where people said " ya, they call stalling like they should" or where a common sentiment was not " they gotta force action more, call stalling more"...I'd say after decades of bashing our heads against the wall that is referees swallowing whistles we just may have to acknowledge the unrealistic expectation that is, for whatever reason. Because I'm almost certain we will never actually think stalling is called enough. There has to be other answers as well..Not the 3 point takedown. That was never gonna work for creating less stalling. Is fun to see PSU tech everyone though...

My recollection may be clouded by years, nostalgia with a biased filter, and exaggeration to make a point. But, I seem to remember in the early 80s, when the whistle blew from neutral, if you took more than a couple of steps backwards, you were getting hit with a stall call, particularly if you already had one on you. Contrast that with the Lilledahl, McGowan match, where McGowan was repeatedly allowed to back to the edge, the ref cupped his hands over his mouth, and said, "Red, I'm begging you. Pretty please don't make me call stalling, because you and your coach might get mad at me." Then, the ref waited for the cacaphony of the Rec Hall crowd to cause him to fear that they might get mad at him. Then, he let it go seconds beyond that, before finally calling it.

Oh, and let's not forget that Dubuque was complicit, because he did get mad at the ref, nobly defending his wrestler because the ref couldn't figure out how many stall calls he had. Really? Your guy either has four stall calls or five stall calls. Isn't either one of those bad enough for you to be quiet, and let them sort it out?

 

[pawrstlersinpa]

 

[Misalorales]

My recollection may be clouded by years, nostalgia with a biased filter, and exaggeration to make a point. But, I seem to remember in the early 80s, when the whistle blew from neutral, if you took more than a couple of steps backwards, you were getting hit with a stall call, particularly if you already had one on you. Contrast that with the Lilledahl, McGowan match, where McGowan was repeatedly allowed to back to the edge, the ref cupped his hands over his mouth, and said, "Red, I'm begging you. Pretty please don't make me call stalling, because you and your coach might get mad at me." Then, the ref waited for the cacaphony of the Rec Hall crowd to cause him to fear that they might get mad at him. Then, he let it go seconds beyond that, before finally calling it.

Oh, and let's not forget that Dubuque was complicit, because he did get mad at the ref, nobly defending his wrestler because the ref couldn't figure out how many stall calls he had. Really? Your guy either has four stall calls or five stall calls. Isn't either one of those bad enough for you to be quiet, and let them sort it out?

You know, this may explain why my father, who wrestled in the 80s, was so prolific at making us kids at such a young age. Guy was never gonna be called a staller .... But in seriousness, that sounds very nice. I would enjoy that version of stall calls being made. Dubuque annoys me. What McGowan did in both matches was intentionally avoided any real wrestling positions. He was slightly "smarter" the 2nd time and just decided well, I can't go straight back so I'll lock his fingers up.

 

[NittanyLion84]

I agree the change seemed to happen in the late 80’s or early 90’s. The biggest change on how stalling was called, as I remember, wrestlers would take one or two steps straight back, maybe get away with it, if they took a third, they’d get hit with stalling. All the sudden, I’m thinking late 80’s early 90’s wrestlers started backing up in a circular manner and wala no stalling called, no matter how many steps they took backwards, as long as it was in a circular motion and it continues to this day. Wrestlers learned, they can backup and disengage all they want, as long as it is in a circular manner.

 

[Corby2]

I agree the change seemed to happen in the late 80’s or early 90’s. The biggest change on how stalling was called, as I remember, wrestlers would take one or two steps straight back, maybe get away with it, if they took a third, they’d get hit with stalling. All the sudden, I’m thinking late 80’s early 90’s wrestlers started backing up in a circular manner and wala no stalling called, no matter how many steps they took backwards, as long as it was in a circular motion and it continues to this day.

Stalling has been called less since the edge stalling was put in as well. Regardless of what people think refs don't want to determine the winner . So now refs are holding regular stalling even more because they know late in the match the edge call will come into play and then they're deciding the match. We need a step out rule it will solve so many things with 1 rule. And the we can only meet every other year to change rules is BS and needs to change. If a rule change is needed it should happen in the offseason we shouldn't have to wait

 

[NittanyLion84]

Stalling has been called less since the edge stalling was put in as well. Regardless of what people think refs don't want to determine the winner . So now refs are holding regular stalling even more because they know late in the match the edge call will come into play and then they're deciding the match. We need a step out rule it will solve so many things with 1 rule. And the we can only meet every other year to change rules is BS and needs to change. If a rule change is needed it should happen in the offseason we shouldn't have to wait

What these Refs seem to not understand is an inaction is still an action and they are still deciding the match, but in a negative way.

 

[Corby2]

What these Refs seem to not understand is an inaction is still an action and they are still deciding the match, but in a negative way.

Maybe the solution is kicking coaches out like in baseball. Being around on the floor and in the corner in the past people would be shocked at what is said to the officials . It's definitely one of the big reasons we don't see stalling. They're judgment calls and one side isnt gonna agree with the judgement

 

[Nitlion1986]

Great analysis. I like the 3-point TD, but it hasn't had the effect I expected.

The biggest issue with Folk is that wrestlers are allowed to stall. There would be no need to change the rules if refs had the balls to call it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The Delgado and Heil rules were positive changes; maybe it's time for a Ferrari rule.

A good black and white fix would be put the inner circle on the mat and the second time a wrestler drifts to that line call them for stalling and everytime after. Or make it every time

There has to be an objective measurement or it isn't getting called more than once or twice a month.

 

[Corby2]

People also need to remember the refs have 9-5 jobs and do this part time . And the coaches rip them apart with every call. And then social media gets involved. It's a mess all around

 

[Nitlion1986]

My recollection may be clouded by years, nostalgia with a biased filter, and exaggeration to make a point. But, I seem to remember in the early 80s, when the whistle blew from neutral, if you took more than a couple of steps backwards, you were getting hit with a stall call, particularly if you already had one on you. Contrast that with the Lilledahl, McGowan match, where McGowan was repeatedly allowed to back to the edge, the ref cupped his hands over his mouth, and said, "Red, I'm begging you. Pretty please don't make me call stalling, because you and your coach might get mad at me." Then, the ref waited for the cacaphony of the Rec Hall crowd to cause him to fear that they might get mad at him. Then, he let it go seconds beyond that, before finally calling it.

Oh, and let's not forget that Dubuque was complicit, because he did get mad at the ref, nobly defending his wrestler because the ref couldn't figure out how many stall calls he had. Really? Your guy either has four stall calls or five stall calls. Isn't either one of those bad enough for you to be quiet, and let them sort it out?

Can't remember what the exact score was but Randy Lewis tells the story about winning a match something like 19-13 and nearly getting DQed for stalling.
Personally, back in the 70s I won a match against a really good upper body dude. Score was 11-5. I got dinged 3 times because when the other guy would bore into me digging under my arms I kept retreating and limp arming out of his undertooks. The referee flat out said son, going backwards isn't wrestling. You need a better solution. I had 5 TDs and an escape and I got hit with 3 stall calls.

 

[Nitlion1986]

Stalling has been called less since the edge stalling was put in as well. Regardless of what people think refs don't want to determine the winner . So now refs are holding regular stalling even more because they know late in the match the edge call will come into play and then they're deciding the match. We need a step out rule it will solve so many things with 1 rule. And the we can only meet every other year to change rules is BS and needs to change. If a rule change is needed it should happen in the offseason we shouldn't have to wait

I like the premise of the step out rule, but then we need a different rule set for mat wrestling. Who gets the step out point when the top guy from behind pushes the bottom guy out. It is already bad enough we allow the top wrestler to use the edge to maintain control, now we can give him a point also?

 

[Corby2]

I like the premise of the step out rule, but then we need a different rule set for mat wrestling. Who gets the step out point when the top guy from behind pushes the bottom guy out. It is already bad enough we allow the top wrestler to use the edge to maintain control, now we can give him a point also?

We make the mat like freestyle with a zone if you escape in that zone no step out can be awarded. I think we should say no reviews for a step out. We have enough stoppages and the reviews to see who's elbow or foot hit out first would happen often. We gotta learn to live with the calls and move on . Youth coaches in America need to start telling kids don't let it be close enough for the ref to decide we need that mindset again. We need to get away from the mindset that people are looking to screw you

 

[pawrstlersinpa]

You know, this may explain why my father, who wrestled in the 80s, was so prolific at making us kids at such a young age. Guy was never gonna be called a staller .... But in seriousness, that sounds very nice. I would enjoy that version of stall calls being made. Dubuque annoys me. What McGowan did in both matches was intentionally avoided any real wrestling positions. He was slightly "smarter" the 2nd time and just decided well, I can't go straight back so I'll lock his fingers up.

Also explains why your Mom was exhausted all the time.

 

[Misalorales]

Also explains why your Mom was exhausted all the time.

Well idk, yours never seemed to mention much about the ole man wearing her down?

 

[NoVaLion]

50% more points should be 50% more fun.

But is it working? Does it incentivize more action and risk taking?

The 3 Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change | Wrestling.Guru

The year was 2023 and there was a plague upon the land of folkstyle wrestling. Scoring at the NCAA tournament was down - a lot. After hitting a near-term pe ...

wrestling.guru

I like the 3 point TD but I have seen no evidence that has created more action except that there are more major decisions and Tech Falls because they are easier to achieve when catch and release nets you 2 points instead of just 1 point.

 

[jack66]

I think that most agree that a step rule in Folk would need to be a bit different from Free. The most obvious would be when the action begins from the referee's position... no step-out point. It might even extend to wrestling from neutral only.

 

[El_Jefe]

This article just irritates me. From the get-go, I (I, here, is not an exclusive club. I recognize there were others.) said, "This isn't going to help." Then, we had one year's worth of data, and I (the Naysayer Club) said, "This isn't helping," while the original supporters on here said, "Ohhhh, I think it's great. I think it's creating more action. It's so much more exciting if the guys who haven't been offensive for seven minutes can suddenly score THREE points, instead of TWO in the Two Minute Overtime Dance. Oh, how grand." Data be damned. Then, we had another year's worth of data, and now another. So, what do we have?

Those guys who somehow thought yelling "THREEEEEE" from the stands, or their living room couches, was so much better than yelling "TWOOOO," just sit here and pretend like we didn't even read what we read. We have a bunch of whistle-swallowers and Officials Against Accoutability. You know who you are, like the refs who couldn't see stalling if it jumped up and kicked them in the knee, and the refs that go over to the Self Validation Table, pretend to look at a replay, then come back to the mat, and say, "Nope, my call was great. Couldn't be better. Thanks for asking." Who is willing to admit they were wrong about the three-point takedown? That the product on the mat is not better now than it was three years ago? That something else has to change? Never mind. We'll let it be rhetorical.

I know, my answer is easier said than done, but we've got to get back to calling stalling the way it was called back in the day. Yes, I know, get off my lawn. But, the No-call Stall Patrol has got to be called out on this. The "Let 'Em Work" guys, the ones who even tell the wrestlers, "Hey, work, or I'm going to think about calling stalling for the next minute, and hope the period ends," without ever really thinking about calling stalling have got to go. With the exception of McGowan, you hang three or four stall calls on a guy, and they know that their next step backwards is going to make them walk off in stall-out DQ shame (maybe there should be a stall DQ dunce cap), surely, the majority of guys will at least attempt to stand their ground, or move forward. The Bureau of Sustained Inaction has got to end.

/rant over, until @Wrestleknownothing posts this data next year, at which time I'll have more vitriol for the Anti-activity Alliance

Apologies to referees who do call stalling aggressively.

How easily we forget T2 over-rewarding escapes.

As a reminder: Nahshon Garrett beat Cory Clark 7-6 while winning the takedown battle 3-0. And Quentin Wright beat Kilgore 8-6, winning the takedown battle 3-1. Both matches were in the national finals, with no back points in either.

With T3 in place, those scores would've been 10-6 and 11-7, which better reflects both matches.

 

[Steelhead52]

Excellent analysis. Point #3 is a hot button for me. I mentioned in another post that I don’t remember a year where there was so much finger grabbing. A coach said earlier this year that PSU wrestlers are always moving forward and we have to figure out how to slow them down. Finger grabbing is effective. It eats clock, stalls, and sets up counters. To me this has been a very successful slowdown technique. Barr and MM have not been hampered as much as some others due to their constant elevation changes and angle hunting but others have been impacted. I have no idea how to combat this except to warn the perp on his third grab or something.

 

[El_Jefe]

Honest question: When guys say "call stalling like they used to", what era are you referring to? I'm a newbie compared to most. Started wrestling around 08, started watching college wrestling as it was available in the early years of Cael's start at PSU. I don't feel like there's ever been a time that I've been around wrestling where people said " ya, they call stalling like they should" or where a common sentiment was not " they gotta force action more, call stalling more"...I'd say after decades of bashing our heads against the wall that is referees swallowing whistles we just may have to acknowledge the unrealistic expectation that is, for whatever reason. Because I'm almost certain we will never actually think stalling is called enough. There has to be other answers as well..Not the 3 point takedown. That was never gonna work for creating less stalling. Is fun to see PSU tech everyone though...

They're reminiscing about a mythical time that perhaps did happen, but so long ago that nobody remembers it as it was.

People also remember King George killing the dragon.

 

[Corby2]

How easily we forget T2 over-rewarding escapes.

As a reminder: Nahshon Garrett beat Cory Clark 7-6 while winning the takedown battle 3-0. And Quentin Wright beat Kilgore 8-6, winning the takedown battle 3-1. Both matches were in the national finals, with no back points in either.

With T3 in place, those scores would've been 10-6 and 11-7, which better reflects both matches.

The one year at the all star classic they had the rule if you got a takedown and were in control when a stoppage occurred you could cut the guy and he doesn't receive the escape point. My opinion I would rather see that then the 3 point takedown. It makes guys want to ride hard to stay in control as well instead of just cutting them

 

[Wilbury]

How easily we forget T2 over-rewarding escapes.

As a reminder: Nahshon Garrett beat Cory Clark 7-6 while winning the takedown battle 3-0. And Quentin Wright beat Kilgore 8-6, winning the takedown battle 3-1. Both matches were in the national finals, with no back points in either.

With T3 in place, those scores would've been 10-6 and 11-7, which better reflects both matches.

Agreed. You can slice and dice numbers any way you want. Bottom line a 3 pt takedown and 2 pt escape is just a better way to score than a 2 pt takedown.

 

[JakkL]

A good black and white fix would be put the inner circle on the mat and the second time a wrestler drifts to that line call them for stalling and everytime after. Or make it every time

There has to be an objective measurement or it isn't getting called more than once or twice a month.

I really like this idea. Maybe put it 3 feet from OOB and it be a danger zone. Go in it on your own power standing and shoot quickly or come back in or get hit with stalling.the only thing is it might lead to guys sprinting in a circle back to center and causing even less action.

 

[JakkL]

Excellent analysis. Point #3 is a hot button for me. I mentioned in another post that I don’t remember a year where there was so much finger grabbing. A coach said earlier this year that PSU wrestlers are always moving forward and we have to figure out how to slow them down. Finger grabbing is effective. It eats clock, stalls, and sets up counters. To me this has been a very successful slowdown technique. Barr and MM have not been hampered as much as some others due to their constant elevation changes and angle hunting but others have been impacted. I have no idea how to combat this except to warn the perp on his third grab or something.

That would be my only complaint on our coaching this season. It became obvious early that people were doing it to us to slow us down. We needed to practice NOT getting into fingers.

 

[WV lion]

I think that most agree that a step rule in Folk would need to be a bit different from Free. The most obvious would be when the action begins from the referee's position... no step-out point. It might even extend to wrestling from neutral only.

I think you are correct, it would have to be neutral only. It would really suck to stand up 3 times only to be pushed out of bounds and give up 3 points.

 

[The Pitchfork Rebel]

"To better reflect the skill and energy required to secure a takedown.
Increasing the points awarded will incentivize wrestlers to take additional risk in the
neutral position, providing increased opportunities for both offensive and defensive
takedowns. "

Ceteris Paribus thinking rears it's ugly head again. Poorly thought out. Grade inflation. Ruined the reward structure relative to escapes, reversals and especially near fall.

Why did they not recognize the skill and energy it takes to reverse or pin an opponent?

Did they not understand that raising the incentive to secure a takedown also raises the incentive to defend against it? In the author's discussions on match outcome changes , he treats 1 (3 pt TD) &2 as independent, when 2 is the result of 1.


That's the most damning part of the analysis. It is clear that we are getting fewer takedowns in matches, the very thing they sought to reward. There are paradoxical results.

I have to admit, I thought there would be fewer pins and a lot more matches would end up being TF's, as the incentive to "catch and release"-but I didn't see the rise in regular decisions.

Obviously, if match point difference is 8 for a major and 15 for a Tech, 4X & 7.5X the old TD value and you change it to 2.67 and 5, some guys are going to incentivized to go for the TF, especially if their path to 2 bonus points is now easier than it was for 3-and the pin should always be objective of wrestling.

But what I forgot is there's damn few Barr's, Mesenbrinks, Nolfs and Nickals who can seemingly takedown an opponent at will. Antrel Taylor is perfectly capable of scoring points against a clearly inferior opponent, but after his his early season losses, any time he had a peer or near peer opponent, he was as likely as not to be defensive, especially at NCAA's.

So for a lot of guys, a good defense is a good offense. It's a lot easier to shove on somebody's forehead, drop to a knee or feign offense like McGowan did in the NCAA final. All he did after the match where he DQ'd for stalling was refine his stalling technique.


Unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag. Even if you go back to a 2 pt TD, these new defensive techniques still exist, so now, you've got not only to change the point value, but ban things riding a knee or locking fingers or call it as stealth-stalling.

​

 

[Corby2]

I think you are correct, it would have to be neutral only. It would really suck to stand up 3 times only to be pushed out of bounds and give up 3 points.

Yes it could definitely only be from neutral

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

"To better reflect the skill and energy required to secure a takedown.
Increasing the points awarded will incentivize wrestlers to take additional risk in the
neutral position, providing increased opportunities for both offensive and defensive
takedowns. "

Ceteris Paribus thinking rears it's ugly head again. Poorly thought out. Grade inflation. Ruined the reward structure relative to escapes, reversals and especially near fall.

Why did they not recognize the skill and energy it takes to reverse or pin an opponent?

Did they not understand that raising the incentive to secure a takedown also raises the incentive to defend against it? In the author's discussions on match outcome changes , he treats 1 (3 pt TD) &2 as independent, when 2 is the result of 1.

View attachment 1236522
That's the most damning part of the analysis. It is clear that we are getting fewer takedowns in matches, the very thing they sought to reward. There are paradoxical results.

I have to admit, I thought there would be fewer pins and a lot more matches would end up being TF's, as the incentive to "catch and release"-but I didn't see the rise in regular decisions.

Obviously, if match point difference is 8 for a major and 15 for a Tech, 4X & 7.5X the old TD value and you change it to 2.67 and 5, some guys are going to incentivized to go for the TF, especially if their path to 2 bonus points is now easier than it was for 3-and the pin should always be objective of wrestling.

But what I forgot is there's damn few Barr's, Mesenbrinks, Nolfs and Nickals who can seemingly takedown an opponent at will. Antrel Taylor is perfectly capable of scoring points against a clearly inferior opponent, but after his his early season losses, any time he had a peer or near peer opponent, he was as likely as not to be defensive, especially at NCAA's.

So for a lot of guys, a good defense is a good offense. It's a lot easier to shove on somebody's forehead, drop to a knee or feign offense like McGowan did in the NCAA final. All he did after the match where he DQ'd for stalling was refine his stalling technique.


Unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag. Even if you go back to a 2 pt TD, these new defensive techniques still exist, so now, you've got not only to change the point value, but ban things riding a knee or locking fingers or call it as stealth-stalling.

​

A couple of points;

Well, if that is the most damning part, then I am in good shape. I am not treating anything as independent (or dependent for that matter) because they are not variables. They are just empirical observations. Before the advent of the 3-point TD there were a certain number of 0 or 1 TD matches, and after there is a different, much larger, number. Simple.

Your instinct was correct, there are fewer pins and many more tech falls as shown in the first graph and broken down in detail in the first table.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

I was thinking about Luke's NCAA match against McGowan, which is a microcosm of so many matches this season. It just seems so strange to me to wrestle the way he did. Right before the match he was pumped and gave some hard hand slaps to his coaches. Then the match starts and he does absolutely nothing except try to stall himself to an unexpected victory. Compare him to someone like Caliendo, who at least wrestled to win. As a wrestler, I could take no pride if I completely stalled and lucked my way to a title. McGowan's mindset is really bad for wrestling and your generic wrestling fan. As a hardcore wrestling fan, I am very disappointed in what the officials and coaches have allowed D1 wrestling to become. If this trend continues, your semi-casual fans are going to go away. When a sport consistently allows the better competitor to be harmed by the officiating gamesmanship, then that sport is in danger of losing whatever relevance it had.