The "last point scored" rule is in effect because of the need for tie breakers. Otherwise you'd have way too many clinches (not that they don't already). They tried "first point wins" but that really leads to stalling. I agree that scoring last doesn't make you technically better, but one could argue it makes you tactically better- you are able to score (or defend) when it is the most important.

I don't particularly like the "best of three" format and the tiebreakers and clinches that it entails. I think wrestling should be simple and the rules make it complicated . However, I competed under these rules for quite a while and ot me they are just "the rules of wrestling". Not perfect in any way, but that's just how it is.

I did my fair bit of stalling as a competitor, but as a spectator I wish they would penalize it more. The problem is that international wrestling has more then enough issues with corruption already, without given referees the power to award points for somethign as subjective as staling.

If there is a time element to control ("and keep him there") then I think you are right Zapp. I didn't watch the Rey/Flores match, but if it's one of those things where a guy is held on his back but isn't giving up points because he's grabbing onto something then I agree 100%. Also agree that riding is very boring.

Originally Posted by quinn14

You may be right on the greco/folkstyle pinning stuff, but I question your judo knowledge. Not saying your wrong, but here is what I learned.

Judo was started by Dr. Jigoro Kano in 1881 or 1882. It was an off shoot of jujutsu. The only real difference was that he took the "killing" aspect out of it. As far as I know, you always had to hold someone down for 30 seconds until the last 10 or so years where they dropped it to 25 secs. The throws were developed by Kano because he was a small guy (110lbs or so) and he needed a self defense without the need for strength. The original idea of throws was for defending yourself from knights in armor, but that was jujutsu. The 30 second (now 25 sec) hold down has been from the beginning of judo. My instructor told me it took 30 seconds to throw someone down, get your knife out, and penetrate the armour to kill them. I could be wrong, but if I am, a dude on here called ODH will know for sure.

The version I heard was that if you held someone down for 30 seconds that was enough time for your partner to go get his sword and come back and cut his their head off. I don't know why you have to hold him with his back on the mat for that to happen, but either way it is now more about the rules of the game than self defense.

IMO, determining control in Folkstyle has gotten more difficult now that wrestlers have developed "funky wrestling" where a desperate grab and clinging onto to the ankles can frequently result in a reversal of position. I still think that if you are laying on your back with the other wrestler on top of you the takedown should be awarded, even if you are clinging onto an ankle. I am not a big fan of funk mostly becasue it goes against what I learned and what I think of the basis of wrestling is to always stay in good position.

The one fresstyle scoring position that I have a probelm with is when a wrestlers hits a powerful double leg and the other guy flops to his back and does an elevator (I am not sure what this is called) so that the offensive wrestlers back is briefly exposed and then gives up the takedown. I usually see this scored 2 AND 2. More so than any other scoring sequence this seems like cheap points for the defensive wrestler.

Originally Posted by arm-spin

I did my fair bit of stalling as a competitor, but as a spectator I wish they would penalize it more.

I can't argue with you there. It is much easier to want stalling penalized when you are not the one dead tired. I'm sure I stalled, too, but at the time it seemed like a smart tactic. Funny how I seem to forget my own stalling when I see someone else doing it.