The 3-Point Takedown: Friend or Foe?

[Wrestleknownothing]

Thanks to the data provided by @cowcards we can now look at the 3-point takedown through a new lens. Check it out here.

Lights, Camera, ACTION

At the time the three pointer was approved the rationale was twofold:

1. The extra point rewards offensive actions and risk-taking.
2. It creates a more appropriate point differential between takedowns and escapes.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-3-point-takedown-approved-in-wrestling.aspx

Let's examine the first belief. Has there been more offensive action and risk taking? Well, with only two years worth of data it might be too soon to tell, but so far it looks like the answer is a resounding no. Not only has there not been more, there actually appears to be less.

Survey Says....

From 1993 to 2023, when all takedowns were worth 2 points and criteria was removed as a tiebreaker, for non-overtime matches ending in decision, or major decision (matches that go the full time and are not tech falls), the most common score was 3-2 (5.3%). With the advent of the 3-point takedown in the last two years, the most common score for these matches was 4-2 (7.9%).

One takedown matches have increased in frequency (+49%) even after they were already the most common outcome.

And sadly, during the last two tournaments the ninth most common score for non-TF, full-time matches was 2-0. That's right. A match with zero takedowns has entered the top 10 for full-time score since the rule change. For reference, 2-0 used to be the 27th most common score.

So?

One way to interpret this is that once the first takedown is secured wrestlers get into the mindset of keeping what they have rather than taking risk to try to add to it. The opposite of the stated goal.

A less direct measure is to look at the percentage of matches that go to OT.

• 1993 - 2023: 8%
• 2024 - 2025: 10%.

Not a huge leap given the size of the data for the 3-point era, but suggestive nonetheless.

Taken together you would be hard pressed to say they 3-point takedown has succeeded in rewarding risk-taking.

 

[Crablegs1]

Thanks to the data provided by @cowcards we can now look at the 3-point takedown through a new lens. Check it out here.

Lights, Camera, ACTION

At the time the three pointer was approved the rationale was twofold:

1. The extra point rewards offensive actions and risk-taking.
2. It creates a more appropriate point differential between takedowns and escapes.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/8/media-center-3-point-takedown-approved-in-wrestling.aspx

Let's examine the first belief. Has there been more offensive action and risk taking? Well, with only two years worth of data it might be too soon to tell, but so far it looks like the answer is a resounding no. Not only has there not been more, there actually appears to be less.

Survey Says....

From 1993 to 2023, when all takedowns were worth 2 points and criteria was removed as a tiebreaker, for non-overtime matches ending in decision, or major decision (matches that go the full time and are not tech falls), the most common score was 3-2 (5.3%). With the advent of the 3-point takedown in the last two years, the most common score for these matches was 4-2 (7.9%).

One takedown matches have increased in frequency (+49%) even after they were already the most common outcome.

And sadly, during the last two tournaments the ninth most common score for non-TF, full-time matches was 2-0. That's right. A match with zero takedowns has entered the top 10 for full-time score since the rule change. For reference, 2-0 used to be the 27th most common score.

So?

One way to interpret this is that once the first takedown is secured wrestlers get into the mindset of keeping what they have rather than taking risk to try to add to it. The opposite of the stated goal.

A less direct measure is to look at the percentage of matches that go to OT.

• 1993 - 2023: 8%
• 2024 - 2025: 10%.

Not a huge leap given the size of the data for the 3-point era, but suggestive nonetheless.

Taken together you would be hard pressed to say they 3-point takedown has succeeded in rewarding risk-taking.

I appreciate this data. The rationale never made sense. So many takedowns are scored by reattack or counter scramble. This change increased the risk associated with being offensive. All it did was artificially inflate scoring and make bonus significantly easier.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

I am starting to come around to the counter-intuitive.

If you want to increase risk taking, lower the score for a takedown to 1.5. If you only get 1.5 and a reversal is worth 1, you can no longer run and hide after a single takedown. A single stalling point loses the match. If you want to be safe you need more takedowns to build your margin.

I am beginning to believe they went the wrong direction if they want to promote scoring and risk-taking.

 

[LIV4GOD]

I wonder what it would do if it was 3 for initiating, but only 2 for a counter TD.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

Zero Takedown Matches

• In the two years prior to the rule change (2022 -2023) there were 13 matches where the winner had 1 point (i.e. no takedowns).
• In the two years since the rule change (2024 - 2025) there have been 76 matches where the winner had 1 or 2 points (20 with a single point, 56 with 2 points).

One Takedown Matches

• In the two years prior to the rule change (2022 -2023) there were 51 matches where the winner had 2 or 3 points (i.e. one takedown).
• In the two years since the rule change (2024 - 2025) there have been 352 matches where the winner had 3, 4, or 5 points.
• Even if you expand the 2022-2023 scoring to include 2, 3, or 4 points for the winner, based on the assumption most 4 point matches involve one TD, one or two escapes, and zero or one riding point, the total is still only 281 matches.

No matter how you look at it there has been a substantial uptick in zero (+485%) or one takedown matches (between 24% and 590%).

I think by any metric it is clear that the 3-point takedown has had the opposite effect to what was intended.

 

[Crablegs1]

I wonder what it would do if it was 3 for initiating, but only 2 for a counter TD.

In theory it makes sense, but I think that would be an impossible thing to officiate in this day and age. Wrestling is too fluid and officials would have to make judgement calls.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

A new stat for you that suggests the 3 point takedown has had the opposite of the intended effect.

In the 2022 and 2023 tournaments there were 115 OT matches, 57 (50%) went to OT tied at 0 or 1 (no TDs).
In the 2024 and 2025 tournaments there were 128 OT matches, 93 (73%) went to OT tied at 0, 1, or 2.

 

[Iron Doc]

Wish the 3 point TD would have been in place when Junior wrestled.
The grandmonster that is currently wrestling does make good use of it.

 

[chipackhawk]

In theory it makes sense, but I think that would be an impossible thing to officiate in this day and age. Wrestling is too fluid and officials would have to make judgement calls.

If they can find a way to officiate freestyle with all of the scoring possibilities there - they can figure out who initiated the takedown versus a counter. I do like that concept.

 

[ebdad]

Just thinking outside the box but what if the first tk was 2 pts, the second 3 pts, the third 4 pts, and fourth 5 pts? Or make it change by periods so a tk in the second was worth more than the first and a tk in the third more still? Either might boost action late in matches.

 

[MSU158]

Just thinking outside the box but what if the first tk was 2 pts, the second 3 pts, the third 4 pts, and fourth 5 pts? Or make it change by periods so a tk in the second was worth more than the first and a tk in the third more still? Either might boost action late in matches.

That would disincentivize many for even going for that first takedown early. It is already very hard to get takedowns when guys are fresh. Wearing your self out to get a 5-2 type lead going into the 3rd, only to lose to one 4 point takedown in the 3rd? Not practical...

Now, what it definitely would do is make lopsided matches exceptionally short!

Edited to add: I just thought of another even more brutal scenario. You have a 4 point lead late and that 1 takedown gives you the major. BUT, being overaggressive could get you taken down and have the match tied or even fall behind. Now, guys can be overaggressive late, because giving up 1 takedown still keeps them comfortably in the lead. However, in this scenario, the risk doesn't necessarily outweigh the reward...

But, I would consider a system where the takedown value goes up for each wrestler, individually. Each takedown you get, the value goes up. Now that would definitely incentivize wrestlers to get more takedowns than the other and even give guys a path to come back from getting put on their back early. Now, if you get hit with a big move and go down early 7-0, it is almost impossible to come back. But, just 3 takedowns after that, would essentially get you to a 10-10 match if each guy got their escapes on the 4 total takedowns in the match. I could get behind something like that...

 

[MSU158]

If they can find a way to officiate freestyle with all of the scoring possibilities there - they can figure out who initiated the takedown versus a counter. I do like that concept.

A very, very slippery slope. A ton of re-shots are done off slight level changes, shifting feet and even head faints. Would all of those be considered counters? How "successful" does the initial "attack" need to be to consider the "retaliatory" action a counter? At what point of the action do you consider the moves stopped and consider an attack "new"? How about offense off collar ties? If you get shucked, and then shoot, is that a counter? Two guys are locked in a over/under and shimmy each other several times, is it a counter when 1 decides to fully pull the trigger?

You can go on and on, but the nuances of "counter" wrestling is every bit as difficult to pin down as Crabby said...

 

[mac119]

A new stat for you that suggests the 3 point takedown has had the opposite of the intended effect.

In the 2022 and 2023 tournaments there were 115 OT matches, 57 (50%) went to OT tied at 0 or 1 (no TDs).
In the 2024 and 2025 tournaments there were 128 OT matches, 93 (73%) went to OT tied at 0, 1, or 2.

These are all great stats to think about. Do you have any for the other end of the spectrum? Like Crabby said, it might have made bonuses better., which could be good or just a gimme. A wrestler going into the 3rd with a 6-2 lead in the past might have more incentive to get a couple takedowns rather than just a boring ride out.

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

These are all great stats to think about. Do you have any for the other end of the spectrum? Like Crabby said, it might have made bonuses better., which could be good or just a gimme. A wrestler going into the 3rd with a 6-2 lead in the past might have more incentive to get a couple takedowns rather than just a boring ride out.

I was thinking about doing some positive stats this afternnon. Too much negativity out of me lately. Time for a change. But first I need to recover from a very attractive woman kicking the crap out of me.

To clarify, it was a hot humid yoga class with weights and bands.

 

[sdvike]

I was thinking about doing some positive stats this afternnon. Too much negativity out of me lately. Time for a change. But first I need to recover from a very attractive woman kicking the crap out of me.

To clarify, it was a hot humid yoga class with weights and bands.

I don't know if shots taken is a stat. Would be great to see shots to takedown percentage for individuals. Hwc talk with Sorensen had me thinking. Desanto got a ton of tdowns but Brando likely had a better ratio.

 

[ebdad]

That would disincentivize many for even going for that first takedown early. It is already very hard to get takedowns when guys are fresh. Wearing your self out to get a 5-2 type lead going into the 3rd, only to lose to one 4 point takedown in the 3rd? Not practical...

Now, what it definitely would do is make lopsided matches exceptionally short!

Edited to add: I just thought of another even more brutal scenario. You have a 4 point lead late and that 1 takedown gives you the major. BUT, being overaggressive could get you taken down and have the match tied or even fall behind. Now, guys can be overaggressive late, because giving up 1 takedown still keeps them comfortably in the lead. However, in this scenario, the risk doesn't necessarily outweigh the reward...

But, I would consider a system where the takedown value goes up for each wrestler, individually. Each takedown you get, the value goes up. Now that would definitely incentivize wrestlers to get more takedowns than the other and even give guys a path to come back from getting put on their back early. Now, if you get hit with a big move and go down early 7-0, it is almost impossible to come back. But, just 3 takedowns after that, would essentially get you to a 10-10 match if each guy got their escapes on the 4 total takedowns in the match. I could get behind something like that...

I was aware of most of the limitations you noted but thought it provoke some discussion as it has..I like your last twist on the idea. It would be pretty easy to track and easy for wrestlers and coaches to be aware. And I like the possibility of big comebacks being more likely. I prefer something like that to asking refs to make judgement calls on who initiated etc.

 

[mac119]

I was thinking about doing some positive stats this afternnon. Too much negativity out of me lately. Time for a change. But first I need to recover from a very attractive woman kicking the crap out of me.

There are worse things in life

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

There are worse things in life

There is a reason I return for more

 

[mac119]

As we look at takedown trends, it would have been nice if they kept track of stalemate calls. My gut tells me that in the era of takedown defense being sprawls and whizzers, there were a lot less stalemates. That doesn't necessarily mean that the takedown success percentage is higher, but it is possible. I just watch my own matches and notice that the defense of both my opponent and myself led to higher scoring matches. In the last several years, its more go over the top and grab the ankles as a defense - or dive under and grab a leg - and wait for a stalemate.

The reason I bring this up is that ..... what does your data look like if you compare the 3pt era to just the previous 4-5 years (how many years do you suppose this new takedown defense has been popular)? I know that makes less of a good sample size, but it might be that there are more variables affecting the data than just the points for a TD.

Certainly no offense to the data you put together. I'm a stat guy, so I love it.