Shane Sparks Hates the New 3 Point Takedown Rule, Debate Gets Heated
- Thread starter NittanyLion84
- Start date
100% Agree.
Still, all that gets fixed by having a well-executed stalling/passivity system in Folk. Throw in step out if you have to. Can have action being enforced without needing to get rid of OT.
I'd rather not have the step out.
Fix what's actually broken, instead of tiptoeing around it or covering it up. We're placing rocks on turds to hide the turds. When this doesn't work, someone will kick the rocks, and the turds will still be there.
that made me laugh...imagine the high pitches or varying pitches of the call
. I was referring to the stall calls during the last minute when the first minute could be and is sometimes worse and is isgnored.
Ludicrous interpretation. Skilled wrestlers who excel at taking down their own opponents should be rewarded for that skill at more than a 2:1 ratio. It’s not about getting to see a certain number of takedowns. That’s idiotic. Make sense, now? SMH.
Is that why the rule was instituted? I thought it was because we need to make the sport more exciting, which this rule does not.
I'm interested to see how things will be in the next few years with a new National Coordinator of Officials. One thing is for certain, he REALLY impressed me at the Convention this weekend (Mike McCormick, for those who don't know...I obviously knew him previously, but the way he explains things is great, something that I'm not sure could always be said with the prior National Coordinator)
They are rewarded better than 2:1. At a minimum they start to get riding time. Maybe 20% of the time they ride out the period and it is a 2:0 ratio.
And folk style isn’t supposed to be all takedowns. There are 3 positions for a reason, and choices to take them for a reason. Being able to get 1 takedown and then avoid having to stay active or get out from bottom makes no sense if the goal is competitive, active matches.
In support of the 3 pointer.
RBY, Nick Lee, Nolf and Brooks in particular have had a significant number of 12-14 point differential 'major' decisions. Only the clock prevented a rightful Tech Fall.
Total friggin BS in my book considering most if not all of the opponent's points were from free releases.
In circumstances where one wrestler is totally dominant, the 2:1 ratio is severely flawed.
I don't disagree that this change pushes folk in the direction of free, but the stalling on top is going to be even more of an influence in this regard. Say hello to a lot of catch and release, and free release from top or neutral start at the start of a new period. This I don't like.
But if he gets 2 takedowns and gets up 6 to 2 will the losing wrestler want to hand fight for 3 minutes or backup to the edge of the circle or will it make them engage more. I am hoping they will feel the need to engage.
As a PSU fan I like it. As an Iowa fan I would not. Two different types of wrestling. Many of the Iowa fans would laugh when we would list the takedowns differences in a match. I would hope they get more aggressive on their feet. We will see.
Last edited:
If the best defense of a rule change is to make an uncompetitive Uber-major decision into a tech fall, you have lost the argument.
Tech falls are boring. They are no different than PSU-Delaware in football. And in only very rare and unpredictable circumstances would the extra point make a damn bit of difference,
1-1, 10 minute, fat boy matches are as “exciting” as a tech fall match that everyone knows is over 30 seconds in.
One of the most hilarious threads last year was when the Iowa fan on here was trying to bust on PSU fans for being “obsessed with takedowns”. That was not only outrageously hilarious, but also very revealing of the Iowa style of wrestling to which they have grown accustomed.
Excited for 3pt tds. 2x of the biggest reasons:
Penalty points are less valuable -- refereeing adjusts by issuing more stall warnings b/c they are less consequential
6pt moves will no longer, effectively, end matches. Wrestlers more free to be aggressive w/o fear of giving up a 6x, then having no practical method for getting back into the match while the other guy kills time & does nothing.
IF 3pt tds are successful, I'd really like to see 3pt reversals added.
And, as always, I would like to see all out-of-bounds top/bottom action considersided loss of control and require a neutral restart.
Penalty points are less valuable -- refereeing adjusts by issuing more stall warnings b/c they are less consequential
6pt moves will no longer, effectively, end matches. Wrestlers more free to be aggressive w/o fear of giving up a 6x, then having no practical method for getting back into the match while the other guy kills time & does nothing.
IF 3pt tds are successful, I'd really like to see 3pt reversals added.
And, as always, I would like to see all out-of-bounds top/bottom action considersided loss of control and require a neutral restart.
Last edited:
I never enjoyed wrestling as much as I did when Bo, Jason and Zain made pins a matter of when not if.
The three point takedown completely disorders scoring. A reversal is more difficult to execute, but now has less value.
I’m open to a 3 point reversal, which actually takes some skill vs getting 1 point for an escape when a guy intentionally lets you up.
That would help, but I still think it is a lot harder to put a guy on his back that to take him down and now its possible to get less points for a NF than a takedown. Not just equal, but less.
Incentives matter and if we look at points as prices, Econ 101 applies. There will be income and SUBSTITION effects and there will slso likely be unanticipated secondary and tertiary effects.
I think catch and release will become the norm and that will be BORRRING, however I can imagine a scenario where if I think I'm just going to get taken down again and again to be teched, I stall on bottom putting up feigned attempts to escape.
The problem with this thing is it was cooked up on paper without a test deployment.
It's probably not goong to be the panacea promised, or as bad as I fear, but it ruins continuity and comparability and when the inevitable side effects occur, if they end up being more detrimental, do you think we'll hea r an admission of error? No, they'll screw with other rules.
Being a CPA, I'm already familiar with ever changing rules promulgated from echo chambered Prometheans that always promise to improve financial reporting, but only seem to complicate it. At the end of the day, the old saw remains GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles- a lie they are specifically prescribed) is crap, but its the best thing we got.
Screwing with the point system won't help the absence of good marketing for the sport or make up for the diminishing value of dual meets.
