Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 10 to 15 of 15

Thread: changes

  1. #10
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: changes

    Quote Originally Posted by jba205 View Post
    Ive heard talk of going back to 2 x 3 min periods with pushouts being worth 1, takedowns 2, exposure 3, takedown to back, 4 and 5 points for grand amplitude.

    Andy Hrovat also offered up the idea of having a 15 sec "shot clock" after a takedown happens. Once the takedown occurs, the top wrestler has 15 secs to get a turn no matter what. Adds a sense of urgency when a takedown occurs and allows time to make a turn happen.

    Thoughts?
    I like revised scoring as I feel a TD should be worth more than a pushout, not sure about making exposure three points however.
    The concept of the 15 sec clock after a TD seems to make sense, but I could also see 15 seconds as a long time for the top wrestlers just to cling on if he is not threatening a turn. Would be interesting to see it trialed in a international tournament.

  2. #11

    Default Re: changes

    I like the clock idea, it takes out the judgement aspect, and gives guys a definite amount of time to work for a turn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts View Post
    [D]on't let lack of knowledge impact your ability to post as if you are knowledgeable.

  3. #12

    Default Re: changes

    The Russel/Oliver match perfectly illustrates a few things about both the current rule set and possible other ones. Sorry about the long rant.


    a) the clinch blows. Fans should be excited, not disappointed, when a championship match goes into OT. If wrestling needs a tiebreaker due to time constraints, I'd love to see the "small circle" idea tried.

    b) If takedowns are changed to be worth 2, while push outs are worth 1, there needs to be very clear criteria on what constitutes a takedown out of bounds. How would you characterize Russel's second score?

    c) in the right circumstances, the short periods can generate action. Both Oliver and then Russel needed to score in the 2nd, and they did. Clearly, each guy is capable of scoring on the other. It's unfortunate that in the first and 3rd they were willing to leave it to the clinch.

    d) The current rules did not create the confusing/controversial scoring. Under old rules, this could be scored a ton of different ways. 0-0 (no take downs), 1-0 for Russel (if you think the 2nd one's takedown), 2-0 for Russel (if you think Oliver fled the mat on the first takedown), 1-0 Oliver (but probably not, that was a really cheesy appreciation point), 2-1, and so on... Any new rule set needs to address clear and objective scoring more than anything else.

    e) All the scores listed above do not make for a very exciting match. Would we expect these guys to put up more points under a different rule set? Are stalling cautions the way to go, or just a way for referees to mess things up more effectively? I don't know. I know FILA instructed its referees to be quicker with "fleeing" cautions, but the only match I've seen since where a guy is actually cautioned for fleeing is the Dato/Urishev match at Europeans, where the hometown Georgian gets a questionable fleeing point as well as a questionable exposure call go in his favor. Not good.

    66kg F, Kellen Russell vs. Jordan Oliver | 2013 U.S. Open and Fila JR's | Flowrestling Oliver/Russel
    D.Marsagishvili(GEO)-A.Urishev(RUS) 1/2 Final - 84 kg European Championship 2013 Tbilisi Georgia - YouTube Urishev/Mashgarvilli

    In regards to the scramble in the second match posted, I propose the following rule change that would save everyone a lot of grief: in the event of a double exposure situation, unless there is 100% clear control shown (ie a gut wrench or ankle lace) the situation will be scored 2-2. End of story. Under the current tie breaker rules this still creates a "who scored last"? situation, but I'm sure there is a way to figure that out (whoever initiaties scoring sequece gets last point benefit?) Better yet, get rid of tiebreakers and bring on the small circle
    Last edited by arm-spin; 04-24-2013 at 09:57 AM.

  4. #13
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: changes

    What is the small circle? I assume it is making the in bounds smaller, but I have never heard of this.

  5. #14

    Default Re: changes

    Pretty much. Quanon on themat.com is a big advocate. Basically, there is a small "inner circle" on the mat and wrestling takes place in there. First one to score (including pushouts) wins. Keeps the OT short (which seems to be important to FILA/IOC/TV) but not as one sided as the leg clinch, or as difficult to score as the old upper body clinch.

  6. #15

    Default Re: changes

    I post as quanon on themat.com. I don't come over to this forum too frequently.

    There are a couple small circle ideas floating around. For example, I think Gable wants overtime to be untimed in a small (16 foot) circle.

    What I proposed is to have wrestlers begin wrestling in a small interior circle, approximately 2 meters in diameter. Ideally, this would be the case at the beginning of each period of a best of three, and each period that ends in a draw would go to the last person who scored a point.

    The circle disappears (or can be ignored) as soon as anyone scores inside it or anyone steps outside of it. First wrestler to step outside either loses a point or loses on criteria in the event of a scoreless draw.

    This forces early action, which is key to increasing scoring rates throughout the match, especially in the best 2 out of 3 format.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •