Eiermans ride on Lee
- Thread starter sunshinedynomite
- Start date
I think we agree far more than you think! We just see it from our advantage and/or disadvantage. I enjoy a civil wrestling discussion. I may not wish Penn State good luck, but good health at least.
Amused by this, for the what's old is new again aspect.
What Eierman does on top is unorthodox now ... well, some of us have seen that before.
Ty Williams -- Central Columbia 185, PA state finalist in the mid/late 80s, 4 yr starter at NC State -- did many of the same things on top. Especially the cross body ride cradle.
Williams wasn't unorthodox -- the stuff he did was part of our normal bottom practices ("if you do this, here's what top can do next" kind of thing).
We just almost never saw it, because Williams was one of the very few good enough to do that.
I see nothing wrong with the ride. I felt he was trying to turn Nick but the #2 wrestler in the country just doesn't roll over easily. He beat the hell out of Nick for better than two minutes, which could've knocked enough steam out of him to not be able to finish as strong. Do believe Eirman is around a 65% career bonus point scorer....that's pretty impressive.
I wonder if the strategy doesn't become the Matt Brown vs Mike Evans type. They decided that Evans was going to counter wrestle so Brown did the same thing. It would not be in Nick Lee's style to sit back and counter wrestle but you know that Eierman wants Lee to come forward.
It is a risk to make it a one takedown match but it might be the best path to victory.
Is it just me or does Nick look like he is giving up 8-10 pounds on Jordyn and Sebastian? He looks so small compared to those guys? Kinda like Mark against Valencia. They look so much stronger than him.
Yes, Eierman with one takedown by a nifty counter of Lee's leg attack. Lee's 2nd takedown was crisper and he finished. Zero shots from Eierman. Their last freestyle match is the roadmap.
Funny how people bitched (especially Iowa fans) about lusak dbl boot ride but ok with eirerman. I really dislike rides just to ride. Like frank M but he just rode but looked really busy lol. Get ride of ruding time and stand them back up if top doesnt work a tilt bottom gets nothing unkes he escapes.
Boots in is fine, if you are trying to turn. If you are playing with your food, stalemate. I never wrestled or coached, just my opinion.
I was at a local tourny where and Iowa wrestlers team was participating. Small gym, I know the coach at the host school and his wife. He is busy, she and I are chatting watching Iowa wrestlers team destroy their opponents. One light weight, not Iowa Wrestler, takes his guy down, puts in boots and proceeds to maul the poor chap. Bottom would lift his head to try to get up and "boots" would push his face into the mat with one hand and put his forearm across the neck. over and over, Inflicting pain, you bet, scoring points, no. When boots wasn't grinding face, he was pleading for the ref to call stalling on bottom. Two arms extended, pleading. The ref would have none of it.
Iowa wrestlers coaches were pitching fits, but nothing was happening. End of period. Start the next, boots quickly gets on top and it is more of the same. Now these coaches are fit to be tied. I start bellowing..." stalling on top, stalling on top, that's not wrestling, stalling on top" Soon I have three coaches screaming at me. The match is going on and they are yelling and pointing, saying God knows what.
I thought it was hilarious as did the coaches wife I was with.
Never embarrass an opponent. If they suck, beat them, shake their hand and move on.
I was at a local tourny where and Iowa wrestlers team was participating. Small gym, I know the coach at the host school and his wife. He is busy, she and I are chatting watching Iowa wrestlers team destroy their opponents. One light weight, not Iowa Wrestler, takes his guy down, puts in boots and proceeds to maul the poor chap. Bottom would lift his head to try to get up and "boots" would push his face into the mat with one hand and put his forearm across the neck. over and over, Inflicting pain, you bet, scoring points, no. When boots wasn't grinding face, he was pleading for the ref to call stalling on bottom. Two arms extended, pleading. The ref would have none of it.
Iowa wrestlers coaches were pitching fits, but nothing was happening. End of period. Start the next, boots quickly gets on top and it is more of the same. Now these coaches are fit to be tied. I start bellowing..." stalling on top, stalling on top, that's not wrestling, stalling on top" Soon I have three coaches screaming at me. The match is going on and they are yelling and pointing, saying God knows what.
I thought it was hilarious as did the coaches wife I was with.
Never embarrass an opponent. If they suck, beat them, shake their hand and move on.
Dear god man, your posts make my eyes hurt.
probably accused you of loving politicians.
I like that! Nelson Brands wouldn't shake Aaron's hand after the match!! Bad sportsmanship!!! But the whole Iowa program is about poor sportsmanship and that is why they will never dominate in the end because God loves Cael and is on our side!!!
One might argue that Nick succeeded in that position by not getting turned. Granted, avoiding the position in the first place is the goal, but I'd suggest that most wrestlers are giving up back points in that scenario.
I think were Nick lost that period was on a restart. He initially got up quickly but was called for a false start. On the restart, he didn't explode up and was more passive initially. I think that is what allowed Eierman to execute the ride. If he doesn't jump too quick and was still able to get up quickly, I think that whole period changes.
As you said, I think next time will be different. I hope it is, assuming there is a next time again.
As both a former wrestler and a spectator I’ve always viewed double boots as a stalling tactic. Sure there are some guys that you can turn like that but it’s a tactic that more often stifles the action and produces little offensive scoring. And it’s tantamount to a paralell ride.
I’d like to see a 5 count against a lack of progress towards scoring that ends in a stalemate or a stall call.
If the sport is trying to promote more action and scoring, I think that would help.
I really like the above post! What I remember about the 1970's and 1980's was an emphasis on overall action. No action, and the stall calls came much quicker than today.
To compensate, the rules have changed to prevent stalling in certain "situations". A count is started when you're hanging onto the legs as an offensive wrestler, a stall call is made if the offensive wrestler can't bring his opponent back to the mat quickly enough when in the standing position, and they now have the neutral danger rule. Add that to the stall rule changes when heading out-of-bounds, and the NCAA Wrestling Committee, imo has taken the situational route to calling stalls. Ok by me, but I hope it keeps going, and the post above is one more to add on, maybe only as an emphasis.
Last edited:
In this situation, Eierman could not turn Lee and Lee could not get off of bottom, stalemates should have been called more frequently. The point is to encourage action.
One rule change I would like to see is riding time can only be accrued after a takedown or reversal. You should not get riding time because you started to period on top.
Steveson said on Baschamania, he likes to get the first takedown and then ride for a minute. Maybe I am being too harsh with his word choice, but that is what is wrong with wrestling. Now if in that minute you are actually trying to turn the opponent to get near fall points (and not just ride) and use the minute reference to setup getting the riding time point and then releasing, that sounds better.
One rule change I would like to see is riding time can only be accrued after a takedown or reversal. You should not get riding time because you started to period on top.
Steveson said on Baschamania, he likes to get the first takedown and then ride for a minute. Maybe I am being too harsh with his word choice, but that is what is wrong with wrestling. Now if in that minute you are actually trying to turn the opponent to get near fall points (and not just ride) and use the minute reference to setup getting the riding time point and then releasing, that sounds better.
That's not enough -- how many times do we see 2 min of RT in the first period with no swipes?
No riding time without a turn. And riding time can only be accrued in max 30 sec increments.
I could definitely go along with 30 sec increments. Take it a step further, after 30 seconds, back to neutral. Then follow up stalling calls on the bottom wrestler if they do not try to get out.
For the record, I’m also not a fan of allowing the top man to cover the near ankle (hooked with his own leg) while riding for more than a 5 count. While the top man probable has more opportunities to get out of that ride, I still think it qualifies as a parallel ride and stifles real action.
Let me guess, when Lee stood in the first, JE couldn't get a mat return and JE dragged him out walking backwards, that wasn't stalling either.... lmao.
This is one our guys do a lot with a lot of memorable success. I wouldn’t hate to see it go—but unlike the double boots, there are viable turning options open to you while maintaining “the western” leg ride.
Also, can anyone explain to me how JE can finally get hit with 2 stalling calls in 3rd Period (he hadn't taken a shot from neutral the entire match versus Lee's attack after attack - and contrary to a poster's claim on here, the fundamental test for stalling in NEUTRAL is failing to maintain 50% of offensive attacks, so the more one wrestler, Lee in this case, initiates offensive attacks while the other wrestler initiates zero attacks, the greater the onus on Ref to call stalling), then continue to wrestle in the exact same way for the last 45 seconds of the match (i.e., blatant stalling with Lee initiating 100% of attacks and JE initiating zero), but no stalling calls despite JE continuing to blatantly stall and use the illegal strategy as a means to try to win the match - it doesn't get any more illegal than that in the fundamental seminal rules of wrestling (which come from International Free rules - folk was a US adaptation of Int'l Free and remain alligned from Neutral). The stalling calls are made to alter the offending wrestler's behavior - so how does it make any sense to make back-to-back stalling calls on a wrestler who is beyond blatantly stalling and then not call it again despite the wrestler wrestling the last 45 seconds in the exact same fashion allowing him to use blatant stalling as a tactic to win the match by a single point - how does that make any sense within the spirit, and language, of the rules?
Can you repeat that, I wasnt paying attention.
I don't know of any referee would buy the 50% rule. At least not in the folkstyle anyway.
Got it, so your opinion is that stalling calls are not fundamentally a tool for the Referee to alter the offending wrestler's lack of offensive attacks in Neutral? It is also your opinion that Folk was not adapted from International Free (i.e., Free is the seminal sport and the two are still linked fundamentally in the "Neutral Position")? Your notion that stalling calls having nothing to do with the Referee attempting to alter the offending wrestler's exclusively defensive behavior is ridiculous and demonstrates your lack of understanding or knowledge as to the genesis of the rule in the first place which most definitely comes from the Freestyle rules and most definitely were put in place to force the offending wrestler to stop wrestling in an exclusively defensive manner and MAKE AN OFFENSIVE ATTACK... and if the offending wrestler refused to make a bonafide Offensive Attack they were penalized again... and the stalling calls continued until the offending wrestler altered their illegal behavior (i.e., wrestling exclusively in a defensive manner without offensive attacks).
Yea, backing up my claim that the fundamental, and seminal, standard for stalling in the Neutral Position is failure on the part of one wrestler to make offensive attacks and wrestle in an exclusively defensive manner (and the stalling rule and penalties were put in place as a proactive tool the Referee could use to alter the offending wrestler's behavior... and should continue to use until the offending wrestler alters said behavior [and the way an offending wrestler does this is by making a bonafide offensive attack]) is clearly "moving the goalposts"... LMAO.
Well, you did drop the 50% BS, which is no where to be found in the rule book.
Sorry to the board as I broke my own rule and fed the troll.
Eierman did what he needed to win the match with the current rules. He answered Lee’s Riddle to win a B10 title. Savvy match!
You, as a Penn State fan (assuming) and according to your 50% rule, do you remember Verk ever got a stalling call against him because his style is definately conducive for it on most of his matches? Because I don't ever remember you questioning that. Or did you let it slide because he wrestled for Penn State?
Last edited:
Well, you did drop the 50% BS, which is no where to be found in the rule book.
Sorry to the board as I broke my own rule and fed the troll.
I never said it was written in the rules - nice try at attempting to put words in my mouth creating your bullshit strawman arguments. Lame, but doesn't surprise me considering the source. I said the fundamental "standard" for stalling in the Neutral Position is failure to maintain 50% of Offensive Attacks. Folk was adapted from Free genius - Free is the seminal sport and the Neutral Position in Folk is where the two are still aligned and linked. Under the seminal rules of wrestling both wrestlers are required to maintain 50% of the offensive attacks and action in the Neutral Position (i.e., neither wrestler is allowed to wrestle in a predominantly, let alone exclusively, defensive manner). IOW, if one wrestler gets farther and farther from the 50% standard because their opponent is making Offensive Attacks and they are not, they are risking a Stalling Call being called. Once a Stalling Call is made, the offending wrestler was traditionally given some amount of time to alter their behavior - i.e., make a bonafide Offensive Attack (something on the order of 20 seconds) - if they did not alter their exclusively defensive behavior as evidenced by an Offensive Attack, the Referee makes another Stalling Call. The Stalling Calls continue until the offending wrestler alters their exclusively defensive behavior as evidenced by a bonafide Offensive Attack.
Your strawman argument and attempts to put words in my mouth not withstanding, the Ref not making any more stall calls in the NL v JE match for the final 45 seconds despite: 1) having just called JE twice for stalling in the period, AND 2) JE not altering his exclusively defensive behavior after any of the first 2 stall calls.... makes zero sense within the context of the seminal rules of wrestling and was tantamount to rewarding JE for using an illegal tactic "stalling" to preserve a 1-point lead. Was a complete bullshit way to call the match as anyone who knows the true rules (and genesis of those rules) understands.
TLDR: Some posters are best left on ignore.
Similar threads
