There needs to be a 3 point reversal

[Aardvark86]

'If' our team remains healthy, and we happen to break the 170 team point record, it will no doubt (IMO) be aided by and a direct result of the 3 point TD.

We can't get there without having a great tourney with respect to bonus points. It's quite clear that Tech Falls are more within reach than before. Certainly major decisions are now pretty common place, but I don't believe you get extra points at nationals from majors.

Ignoring bonus, the 3 pointer also brings some late 3rd period come from behind matches back into reality. PSU has better fundamentals and better conditioning than the rest, hence, although this can cut both ways, on balance I expect the net result there to be positive for PSU. Winning maybe 1-2 matches we otherwise may not have.

We will see, but even a couple more points at nationals may make the difference. I tend to think the rule makers in retrospect will not necessarily like seeing PSU distance themselves even further from the pack.

GIA will forever howl in disgust and apply an asterisk (along side the asterisk on their NC that lacked the Ivy teams? Ooops). That should be worth it's weight in gold.

All this aside, I am ok with the change, but agree a reversal should also be 3 points.

For my part, I think the 3 point takedown will be a wash, if not even negative in effect. For every incentive to offensive wrestling comes an equal and opposite incentive to defensive wrestling (ie, so as not to get on the wrong side of the 3 point takedown). While it is obviously very early in the season, to my eye, it already seems like "score effects" are noticeably affecting (with a defensive bias) in-match tactics.

 

[Sleepylion]

Also, if you measure the wrong thing, you won't get the right answer.

A better metric would be attacks per minute of neutral wrestling, measured over the entire season if possible, or at least over a bigger sample such as nationals or CKLV, etc.

Yeah, I did not think of that and while it would be a neat endeavor I do not have the patience to complete that task. Especially to go and look a previous years' data.

 

[Sleepylion]

i feel like i'm actually seeing more stalling at the end of matches with the 3 point takedown. it's causing leads to be larger and thus the leading wrestler is more willing to give up penalty points for stalling rather than engage towards the end of the match.

i know wrestling is severely lacking in data but i'd be interested to know if stall calls are higher this year than before, and specifically for the wrestler that is leading.

I thought that as well. if someone is up by 2 td then taking 3 stalling calls I'd no big deal. Even 1 td is within the strategy. And how often is someone called for 3 stallings in one period.

 

[nerfstate]

to your point, I took the PSU Lehigh match and looked at would have been with a 2 point TD. This isn't perfect because the score influences the action, but it really did not make for closer/better matches or more aggressive neutral action.

PSU-LU
125:
1-0 esc
1-1 esc
1-4 td final
1-3 if 2pt td

133:
0-0stl#1
1-0 esc
1-3 td
2-3 esc
2-6 td
3-6stl#2
3-4 if 2pt td

141:
3-0 td
3-1 esc
3-4 td
4-4 esc
5-4 esc
8-4 td
8-5 esc
11-5 td
11-6 esc
14-6 td
15-6 rt
12-5 if 2pt td

149:
0-3 td
1-3 esc
4-3 td
4-4 esc
4-5 esc
5-5 esc
8-5 td
8stl#1 -5
8-6 esc
11-6 td
12-6 rt
9-5 if 2pt td

157:
3-0 td
4-0 esc
7-0 td
7-1 esc
10-1 td
10-1stl#1
13-1 td
13-2 esc
14-2stl#2
17-2 td tech fall
12-2 if 2pt td*
*there was still time on the match clock when tech fall was completed.

165:
3-0 td
3-1 esc
6-1 td
6-2 esc
9-2 td
Fall
6-2 if 2pt td**
**it was a fall final points did not impact result.

174:
3-0 td
3-2 rev
4-2 esc
5-2 esc
8-2 td
8-2stl#1
11-2 td
11-3 esc
14-3 td
14-4 esc
15-4stl#2
18-4 td
19-4 rtp
14-4 if 2pt td***
*** tech fall awarded at end of regulation, would have been a major decision.

197:
0-3 td
1-3 esc
1-4 esc
1-7 td
2-7 esc
2-10 td
3-10 esc
4-10 esc
4-13 td
5-13 esc
5-16 td
6-16 esc
6-19 td
6-20 rtp
6-14 if 2pt td

HWT:
3-0 td
3-1 esc
4-1 esc
7-1 td
10-1 td
11-1 rtp
8-1 if 2pt td

This is just one match and not much of a data set, but I'm not sure what the change accomplished.

Thanks for this breakdown. It's an interesting glimpse into the past. I think the rule change may have most impacted the showdown at 133, where Aaron's dominance from top wound up being merely an afterthought. Of course he did concede TWO takedowns, but I do wonder if Crookham would've still chosen bottom if he was up 4-1 at the end of the 2nd. Maybe so. Also-I think you may have lost track of which weight was which in your breakdown, FWIW. Looks like maybe you skipped Kasak's match and labeled Levi's as 149?

 

[El-Jefe]

Yeah, I did not think of that and while it would be a neat endeavor I do not have the patience to complete that task. Especially to go and look a previous years' data.

Yeah, that's why we have professionals in the industry.

 

[Sleepylion]

Thanks for this breakdown. It's an interesting glimpse into the past. I think the rule change may have most impacted the showdown at 133, where Aaron's dominance from top wound up being merely an afterthought. Of course he did concede TWO takedowns, but I do wonder if Crookham would've still chosen bottom if he was up 4-1 at the end of the 2nd. Maybe so. Also-I think you may have lost track of which weight was which in your breakdown, FWIW. Looks like maybe you skipped Kasak's match and labeled Levi's as 149?

that mistake was made... I'm not rewatching to fix it though.

 

[Sleepylion]

Yeah, that's why we have professionals in the industry.

professionals?!? where? lol

 

[El-Jefe]

Thanks for this breakdown. It's an interesting glimpse into the past. I think the rule change may have most impacted the showdown at 133, where Aaron's dominance from top wound up being merely an afterthought. Of course he did concede TWO takedowns, but I do wonder if Crookham would've still chosen bottom if he was up 4-1 at the end of the 2nd. Maybe so. Also-I think you may have lost track of which weight was which in your breakdown, FWIW. Looks like maybe you skipped Kasak's match and labeled Levi's as 149?

I was shocked that Crookham took bottom on Nagao regardless of the score. Yeah, he's strong and good on the mat. He's also a true freshman and has never faced anyone remotely as good as Nagao on top.

 

[nerfstate]

I was shocked that Crookham took bottom on Nagao regardless of the score. Yeah, he's strong and good on the mat. He's also a true freshman and has never faced anyone remotely as good as Nagao on top.

I figured that he figured a 4 point cushion was enough to mess around and find out. I bet he doesn't do it if they meet at NCAAs though . . .

 

[mvattivo]

I could swear you get a point for a major at nationals. There is zero doubt in my mind the 3 point takedown will lead to more points scored at nationals but I’ve been wrong before lol

The points scored for AA placement are also slightly different than in 1997 . They are a bit higher for a few of the placements.

For kicks , I went thru the brackets for the 97 tournament and somehow come up with 166.5 for Iowa so I’m missing something . Did the same for Penn state I think they scored 40 and I was missing something.

At this point I’m a huge fan of the three point takedown and much appreciate what to me seems like more stall calls on wrestlers not generating action . It’s not perfect but what is.

You get 1 bonus point for a major, 1.5 for a tech and 2 for fall/forfeit/DQ at tournaments including NCAA's. That is in addition to the 1 point advancement on the championship side and 0.5 on the consolations side.

 

[dicemen99]

A few points I would like to make on the subject:

• There was a sequence in Beau's match that illustrated the stupidity of 3-point TDs, and 2-point reversals. Beau is on top, Bailey separates briefly, right into a TD, and gains control - is awarded 1 + 3 but it could have gone either way. Beau on the bottom now, rolls and comes up with the leg and goes for the reversal. They went OOB but that's beside the point. Let's say he gets the reversal and is awarded 2. The score (if the period starts with Beau on top - I know it didn't but just illustrating a point) is 4-2 Bailey after both wrestlers accomplished the same thing. Let's say this happens again in the period. Now the score is 8-4 Bailey, yet the position of control has gone Beau/Bailey/Beau/Bailey/Beau with Beau starting the period on top, ending the period on top, and no back points scored. Lunacy.
• As far as comebacks, I can't stand this impression that it creates more opportunities for 3rd-period comebacks as @GogglesPaizano is reinforcing above. When there are no back points involved in a match (which is the majority of matches) there is NO DIFFERENCE in the amount of scoring moves you need to accomplish the comeback. You wouldn't have been down by 7 in the first place if it wasn't for the 2 point TD.
• Yes, it does make it easier to come back via TDs only if you give up a 4-point NF. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe 4 points was too much for NF in the first place (especially for only a 4 count which is maybe 2.5 seconds in real-time for most matches), but maybe it wasn't. BTW, I don't think I've seen a 3-point NF called yet.
• Bonus must be adjusted if they are going to keep this. There are just too many "unintentional" bonus decisions being given away at the end of close matches. If you're down in a close match, especially in a tournament, you're going to throw the kitchen sink at the guy.
• As predicted, stalling at the end of the match is way up. You can run around for the last 30 when you are up because the stalling penalty has been diminished. Refs ARE calling stalling a little more frequently, but that's probably because they know it is an empty gesture.

 

[KSLion]

So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?

Agree. Have long felt that a reversal should be worth 3 even when a takedown was worth 2, simply because a reversal is initiated from a situation where you are being controlled, and requires you to: (1) move to a (momentary) position of neutrality which equates to a 1-point escape all by itself, then: (2) continue on from neutral to instantly assume control of your opponent, which amounts to a 2-point takedown.

Which is different from, and more difficult than, the standard takedown, initiated with both wrestlers in a neutral position and not requiring one wrestler to first overcome control by the other before taking him down.

 

[HikeNatParks]

Agree. Have long felt that a reversal should be worth 3 even when a takedown was worth 2, simply because a reversal is initiated from a situation where you are being controlled, and requires you to: (1) move to a (momentary) position of neutrality which equates to a 1-point escape all by itself, then: (2) continue on from neutral to instantly assume control of your opponent, which amounts to a 2-point takedown. Which is different from, and more difficult than, the standard takedown, initiated with both wrestlers in a neutral position and not requiring one wrestler to first overcome control by the other before taking him down.

Exactly. I’ve long argued that reversals be worth 0.5 “more” than TDs. Not talking match strategy, just the make-up of the moves themselves, which both provide the same result (gain of control). You nicely describe the imbedded escape that happens in each reversal, and the fact it all starts from a more difficult position (under other guy’s control). For critics hesitant to award the imbedded escape with a half-point, then why award a straight escape with a full one? I do believe that keeping a reversal ONLY 0.5 greater than a TD is not just fair, but important. While providing accurate value for both aspects of the more-infrequent move, it allows a later escape or riding time to defeat a wrestler who only leads a match by 0.5. If a visual helps, ask what took more effort and should be worth more: Taking down a hammer like Zain from space, or gaining the same control starting face down on the mat with him on your back? Bottom line, if an escape is worth a point, I believe a reversal’s imbedded one should be worth 0.5, and a reversal worth more than a TD.

 

[Phantom of the Palestra]

It definitely should be 3. 3.5 if it is really cool looking.

 

[mhlarch]

I don't care for the 3 point TD, but I can live with it and I'm willing to see how it impacts matches (pro and con) and I wouldn't recommend the 3 point reversal until we see the impact of the 3 pt TD.

What I don't like is the new "Mandatory Five-Second Count" rule.

• "The mandatory five-second count for the waist and ankle ride will expand to include all situations involving the top wrestler grasping the bottom wrestler’s ankle."

To me they should allow this for the initial struggle after the whistle blows or a wrestler is adjusting before the count starts. I agree if the wrestler on top is using this continually throughout the match and he isn't trying to break the bottom wrestler down and turn him, then just call stalling. But the count seems to interfere with the natural flow of the match. I feel the same for the rule that starts the count for the wrestler initially hanging on the legs after a change in position....need to give some time for the top wrestler to stabilize. It's trying to force action during a short transition time and feels forced.

 

[Psalm 1 guy]

A few points I would like to make on the subject:

• There was a sequence in Beau's match that illustrated the stupidity of 3-point TDs, and 2-point reversals. Beau is on top, Bailey separates briefly, right into a TD, and gains control - is awarded 1 + 3 but it could have gone either way. Beau on the bottom now, rolls and comes up with the leg and goes for the reversal. They went OOB but that's beside the point. Let's say he gets the reversal and is awarded 2. The score (if the period starts with Beau on top - I know it didn't but just illustrating a point) is 4-2 Bailey after both wrestlers accomplished the same thing. Let's say this happens again in the period. Now the score is 8-4 Bailey, yet the position of control has gone Beau/Bailey/Beau/Bailey/Beau with Beau starting the period on top, ending the period on top, and no back points scored. Lunacy.
• As far as comebacks, I can't stand this impression that it creates more opportunities for 3rd-period comebacks as @GogglesPaizano is reinforcing above. When there are no back points involved in a match (which is the majority of matches) there is NO DIFFERENCE in the amount of scoring moves you need to accomplish the comeback. You wouldn't have been down by 7 in the first place if it wasn't for the 2 point TD.
• Yes, it does make it easier to come back via TDs only if you give up a 4-point NF. Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe 4 points was too much for NF in the first place (especially for only a 4 count which is maybe 2.5 seconds in real-time for most matches), but maybe it wasn't. BTW, I don't think I've seen a 3-point NF called yet.
• Bonus must be adjusted if they are going to keep this. There are just too many "unintentional" bonus decisions being given away at the end of close matches. If you're down in a close match, especially in a tournament, you're going to throw the kitchen sink at the guy.
• As predicted, stalling at the end of the match is way up. You can run around for the last 30 when you are up because the stalling penalty has been diminished. Refs ARE calling stalling a little more frequently, but that's probably because they know it is an empty gesture.

I have seen a three point near fall once this season. I had to view the sequence again to make sure, mainly because I had forgotten about the new rule change. Not that anything can be done about it, but I do wish there was more consistency among the officials with the speed at which they make their near fall count. I don't like a fast count, especially for a two count, because I think it punishes scrambling to a certain degree. I swear some of the officials get to a four count as quickly as others get to a three count, if not 2 1/2.