Ok-call me an idiot if you need to but I don't understand the scoring in Greco-Roman. My son has done some GR and I thought I understood it but I don't.

I just watched the match on tv where Deitchler lost the third period and I do not understand how he lost it. The score in the period was 1-0. Then they awarded the other guy 1 (can't figure out what he did to get 1) and Deitchler lost. How does this work?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Proudpatriot

Ok-call me an idiot if you need to but I don't understand the scoring in Greco-Roman. My son has done some GR and I thought I understood it but I don't.

I just watched the match on tv where Deitchler lost the third period and I do not understand how he lost it. The score in the period was 1-0. Then they awarded the other guy 1 (can't figure out what he did to get 1) and Deitchler lost. How does this work?

In case of a tie it goes to last person to score or the high aplitude score to determine the winner

Am I wrong on this interpretation? If the wrestling had been exactly the same in Deithchler's last match - with the exception that the par terre order was reversed - wouldn't Deitchler have won? Isn't wrestling supposed to transcend "luck of the draw"?

Yes, had Deitchler been able to clinch first in the first or the third had all things gone the same (obviously not a given) he'd have won.

The luck of the draw is FILA's answer for the failure of either wrestler to dominate the other sufficiently to score more points. It is designed to be punative and even unfair. Plus, FILA likes the fact that the luck of the draw produces results that might not be expected and allows medals to be won by wrestlers from countries that might not otherwise earn hardware. The main problem that I, and I think many (most?) people, have with it is that it allows an inferior wrestler to clam up and ward off a superior wrestler's offense to take advantage of the luck of the draw. At least in the US, that result offends most peoples' sensibilities; but I am not sure FILA is so offended. As noted, I think they like that the "underdogs" are more likely to win under the present rules than past rules. How do people from other countries feel about this issue? Is there a more universal dislike of this aspect of the new rules? Or is it more accepted outside the US?

In my experiance Americans complain more about the new rules then anyone else. I think this is partly because a large amount of your wrestling population is engaged in folkstyle and does not have much or full knowledge of FS and greco thus making it that more confusing. The rest of the world looks at the rules as exactly that...THE RULES. Its what they have to wrestle under and they don't complain about it they find out how to work with it and win with it. That being said Greco has become much more a game of chance then has freestyle but still complaining endlessly is not going to fix it. If you have wrestled under the new rules especially in FS you will find they really are'nt as terrible as many ppl make them out to be.