ADVERTISEMENT

3 points for takedown and 1 point for escape

I don't like how the Takedown or the Reversal is somewhat trivalized by the current scoring system.

But unsure of the right way to fix it. 2.5 pts ?
 
Good idea. Let's get some data. NWCA All-Star match, Who's #1, Super 32, other offseason events where you can test the theory without impacting the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smalls103
It's actually a better rule change, imo, than the 4-point nearfall, which hasn't created any heartburn at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: backdrft76
I like it. I also don't have a problem with 4NF. Just don't like that it only takes a 4 count
 
Definitely for it.

I am for anything that incentivizes action and penalizes the passive, dull Delgado/Perry style.

I would also be for differentiating between an offensive or defensive TD. Offensive: 3 pts, Defensive: 2 pts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: creamery freak
Still think it should be 3 for a TD off your own attack/shot and 2 for a TD off a counter/scramble (such as a "spin around" off a strong sprawl).
Disagree, strongly. Rules need to be simpler, not more complicated. Haven't yet seen a stall call for interlocking fingers, and the out-of-bounds stall calls (which I like in theory), haven't been consistently applied...just to name a couple examples. NCAA wrestling leadership, the refs, and whoever else is needed, really need to take a look at the refs job...and some of the rules.
 
Not surprising at all that fans from a team who lead in TDs in what I assume is a large margin, would be for 3 pt TakeDowns. :)
I agree, with both TD and reversal. Always bothered me that giving up a reversal is essentially the same as an escape if you can get out afterwards.
I also don't mind the 4 NF either since it is a little closer to Free Style which I believe helps us in the long term.
One thing that is pretty obvious to me anyway, is when a top wrestler is in control and either runs his opponent out of bounds or when they are on the edge and they pull them out of bounds when they are near escape. It's stalling, and it's obvious.
 
I like 3 points for TD and reverses. Also, need 1 point for push outs. The latest stalling rules along the edge are too subjective. You get pushed out...you give up a point just like in freestyle. Need to have standard mat sizes as well.
 
Disagree, strongly. Rules need to be simpler, not more complicated. Haven't yet seen a stall call for interlocking fingers, and the out-of-bounds stall calls (which I like in theory), haven't been consistently applied...just to name a couple examples. NCAA wrestling leadership, the refs, and whoever else is needed, really need to take a look at the refs job...and some of the rules.
Brands hit the nail on the head. Ref's need to ensure they have a seat at the table
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoarLions1
I have always thought the main objective of our sport was to pin our opponent.
I really like the 4 point nearfall, and increasing a takedown value to 3 points devalues the importance of turning your opponent to his back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimNazium
I have always thought the main objective of our sport was to pin our opponent.
I really like the 4 point nearfall, and increasing a takedown value to 3 points devalues the importance of turning your opponent to his back.
agree, that is why I made the comment about cheap tilts.
 
agree, that is why I made the comment about cheap tilts.
So I understand...a "cheap tilt" before this season was 3 points, now it's 4...if it's held for 4 seconds. So you're not really arguing about the added point, you're arguing against "cheap tilts". That's still back exposure, right?
 
So I understand...a "cheap tilt" before this season was 3 points, now it's 4...if it's held for 4 seconds. So you're not really arguing about the added point, you're arguing against "cheap tilts". That's still back exposure, right?
NitLion stated the objective was to pin your opponent. Cheap tilts rarely (unless opponent is pretty weak) result in a pin. That was my point.
Arm bars, cradles, to the back and hold for 5 is OK by me for 4.... I'm not advocating changing because it would eliminates simplicity in scoring. Just voicing an opinion on tilts - that won't result in a pin, being worth 4. Unfortunately, I do not have an answer to solve the dilemma I am speaking about :)
 
Does anyone think that if takedowns were to change to 3 points that it would lead to techfalls needing to be increased from being 15 points up to the likes of something like being 20 points up?

I only ask because this would make being 15 points up quite a bit easier to achieve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6
I'm Ok with the current rules, but I would support a 5 count for the 4 point NF over a 4 count. It's been discussed in depth, but clear up the OB rules and enforce the stalling rules and I think it's all good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nitlion6
Another rule change that might be interesting is to eliminate the riding time point and replace with a 30 second riding rule where the wrestlers are brought to neutral if there is 30 seconds riding with no back points. This could create more action because the bottom guy is at risk of missing out on the escape point and will also avoid those matches with large amounts of riding with no turns that can be boring to watch. Furthermore, it would be more in line with international wrestling.
 
Another rule change that might be interesting is to eliminate the riding time point and replace with a 30 second riding rule where the wrestlers are brought to neutral if there is 30 seconds riding with no back points. This could create more action because the bottom guy is at risk of missing out on the escape point and will also avoid those matches with large amounts of riding with no turns that can be boring to watch. Furthermore, it would be more in line with international wrestling.
Interesting. So if the bottom guy gets out in the 30 seconds he earns an escape point. But if there are no back points within the 30 seconds the wrestlers are put at neutral and no escape point is awarded?
 
If a wrestler gets a three point takedown straight to back for 4, he'll be just about halfway to a TF. I think rakes6293 is right, you would have to consider increasing TF to 18 or 20.

Here's a really simple idea...how about we have refs call stalling, when there's stalling? I mean, geez, the rules are already in the rule books. Why don't we use them? And, that starts at the lowest level of the sport. I'm fed up with going to HS matches to watch a kid take 8 straight shots without the other kid getting dinged.
 
If a wrestler gets a three point takedown straight to back for 4, he'll be just about halfway to a TF. I think rakes6293 is right, you would have to consider increasing TF to 18 or 20.

Here's a really simple idea...how about we have refs call stalling, when there's stalling? I mean, geez, the rules are already in the rule books. Why don't we use them? And, that starts at the lowest level of the sport. I'm fed up with going to HS matches to watch a kid take 8 straight shots without the other kid getting dinged.
Great idea, unfortunately too many refs think that aggressively calling stalling is inserting themselves into the match and that they would be determining the outcome. I would argue, that by them not calling stalling, according to the rules, they are assisting the stalling wrestler to possibly pull out a close win or avoiding bonus.
 
Interesting. So if the bottom guy gets out in the 30 seconds he earns an escape point. But if there are no back points within the 30 seconds the wrestlers are put at neutral and no escape point is awarded?

Yes, that's how I envision it working. Think it would create more action and make a takedown a little more valuable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KFM74
Another rule change that might be interesting is to eliminate the riding time point and replace with a 30 second riding rule where the wrestlers are brought to neutral if there is 30 seconds riding with no back points. This could create more action because the bottom guy is at risk of missing out on the escape point and will also avoid those matches with large amounts of riding with no turns that can be boring to watch. Furthermore, it would be more in line with international wrestling.
that is interesting and I think I like this suggestion. I don't know the answer because I like riding in wrestling as it is a dominant factor. Riding time adds to strategy but not necessarily simplifying for fans (and scorers).
 
Another rule change that might be interesting is to eliminate the riding time point and replace with a 30 second riding rule where the wrestlers are brought to neutral if there is 30 seconds riding with no back points. This could create more action because the bottom guy is at risk of missing out on the escape point and will also avoid those matches with large amounts of riding with no turns that can be boring to watch. Furthermore, it would be more in line with international wrestling.

Agree, the "one point" advantage is potentially preserved for the better "rider" by putting the wrestlers in neutral without a point for the bottom wrestler. I like where you are going here (would align Folk more with Free and emphasize "attacking" and "scoring" to win and eliminate the BS riding-to-win mentality of some Folk wrestlers/coaches), but it requires that NCAA Officials begin enforcing the "stalling rules" from neutral as they are supposed to do (including rewarding one wrestler or the other if the contestants continually go OB....or one or the other is continually going backward).
 
that is interesting and I think I like this suggestion. I don't know the answer because I like riding in wrestling as it is a dominant factor. Riding time adds to strategy but not necessarily simplifying for fans (and scorers).

Yes, but riding simply to accumulate "riding time" is not wrestling and if the top wrestler is doing this, rather than working to improve his position toward a "turn" and pin attempt, the top wrestler is supposed to be called for Stalling (no different than a top wrestler being called for Stalling if all they are doing is hanging on the lower legs of the opponent). The other thing they could do to prevent BS riding for the sake of accumulating riding-time is wipe out 30 seconds of "riding time" along with the Stall Call if the top wrestler is called for stalling (including in OT - maybe make it a 15 second deduction in SV periods). In any event, US Folkstyle needs to do something about wrestlers who simply ride for the sake of accumulating riding-time (and not making a legit attempt to breakdown their opponent and improve to a turn) because this is not really "wrestling" and should not be rewarded, let alone be the deciding factor in a match.
 
Although I am a traditionalist by nature, I can see benefit in increasing the relative value of takedowns and reversals vs. escapes. However, the nostalgic side of me would feel a real sense of loss to no longer hear the entire arena/gym/"hall" erupt with a synchronous "TWOOOOOOO!!!!'" upon scoring of a takedown.

So, I would vote for adjusting downward the value of an escape to, say, 0.5 pts. But then there are logistical problems with not using whole numbers...i.e., how does an official signal a half-point; how does it work with the scoreboard, the score flip-cards at the mat table, etc.
 
Another rule change that might be interesting is to eliminate the riding time point and replace with a 30 second riding rule where the wrestlers are brought to neutral if there is 30 seconds riding with no back points. This could create more action because the bottom guy is at risk of missing out on the escape point and will also avoid those matches with large amounts of riding with no turns that can be boring to watch. Furthermore, it would be more in line with international wrestling.
Not sure what this would do other than create a lot of guys just hanging on for 30 seconds to avoid giving up the point. I just don't see what this does.
 
Another rule change that might be interesting is to eliminate the riding time point and replace with a 30 second riding rule where the wrestlers are brought to neutral if there is 30 seconds riding with no back points. This could create more action because the bottom guy is at risk of missing out on the escape point and will also avoid those matches with large amounts of riding with no turns that can be boring to watch. Furthermore, it would be more in line with international wrestling.
Possible unintended consequence is we've replaced match long 1-pt riding time with 30 second riding time points scored multiple times.

I can easily envision instead of working a turn, just hanging on to preserve that 1 non awarded escape point.
 
Possible unintended consequence is we've replaced match long 1-pt riding time with 30 second riding time points scored multiple times.

I can easily envision instead of working a turn, just hanging on to preserve that 1 non awarded escape point.

It would result in that, but how is "hanging on" for 30 seconds worse than "hanging on" for most of the match? (i.e., after a TD in 1st period, then from the top position on that wrestler's choice). It already results in "hanging on" for 30 seconds in SV which determine outcomes of entire matches, so why do you not have a problem with it there???
 
I've always looked at the 3 point TD as an opportunity to decrease the value of escapes, more so than necessarily rewarding takedowns. It removes from consideration what you can sometimes see as early as the second period in a non-shooting match, where the 3rd period escape is factored into both wrestlers' calculus.

It's also just common sense. Perhaps it's awkward to quantify it this way but escapes are not 50% as difficult than a takedown or a reverse. A 3-pt TD renders escapes 33% as difficult, which seems fair. Further to this same logic it seems similarly equitable to increase reverses to 3 pts--it decreases the value of escapes; and by any common sense standard is more than twice as difficult as an escape.
 
Not sure what this would do other than create a lot of guys just hanging on for 30 seconds to avoid giving up the point. I just don't see what this does.

It prettymuch turns folkstyle into freestyle.
 
I would still just award up to one point for a minute of riding time. This would just stop the long, do nothing, rides. You would need more takedowns to get the riding point and you would eliminate the one point escape to neutral so the bottom man would have to work harder for the escape. It might slow down the Nolf type wrestlers who would hang for the 30 sec to avoid the escape point and get the TF with a faster differential (going up two for each takedown rather than one with escape than takedown)
 
It prettymuch turns folkstyle into freestyle.

Well from the standpoint of stressing "offensive attacks" and scoring to win matches (which is what "real wrestling" is all about).....yes, it absolutely aligns Folkstyle more with Freestyle. There is way too many US Folkstyle matches won by "riding for the sake of riding" and accumulating riding-time -- in real wrestling (i.e., international wrestling), a wrestler is not rewarded for being a great "rider" let alone allowed to win a match based on absolutely NOTHING other than being able to ride effectively.
 
Not a wrestling expert at all but I don't like that a reversal is only 2 points when an escape and takedown would be 3. Seems you are penalizing the down wrestler for being efficient and good. The only change I'd make is reversal is 3.
 
It prettymuch turns folkstyle into freestyle.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind how much easier it is to get exposure points in freestyle if the bottom guy is active and how they do not have stall calls when the bottom man just lies there on his belly with arms extended. I think in folk, the risk-reward is different and it is much more important to get that point via escape.
 
Last edited:
Take Cutch's match the other night. I think everyone would agree that was boring. Other than hitting guys for stalling (repeatedly if needed) I don't think any of these ideas change much. I don't think either guy did much of anything on top or bottom.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT