Thought Provoking Analysis

[Jaguar]

From Stan Dziedzic

As I read the 'Embarrassing Performance' message board, I feel compelled to weigh-in (pun intended) on the subject, mostly to provide a historical perspective and -- if successful -- to channel the collective intellect to focus on 'How the US wrestlers can improve their performance.'

First, let me say there seems to be one thing everyone agrees upon: The performance of the U.S. men's Greco-Roman and freestyle wrestlers in Moscow was awful. That said, dwelling on the fact is counterproductive. Instead, let's harness our experience and intellect to help remedy the problem.

Perhaps some history -- from an insider's point of view -- would be an instructive point of departure.

In 1972, the US freestyle team won 6 medals (3 gold, 2 silver, and a bronze). Arguably the best performance since the USSR first entered international wrestling competition with a vagabond team in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics.

As National coach in 1984 and manager of the Olympic team, I would like to claim that the 9 medals (7 gold and 2 silver) in the Los Angeles Olympics was superior, but that would be disingenuous. There is just no way to compare the '72 Olympics with the boycotted '84 Games.

In the ensuing 3 World Championships after the Munich games, U.S. freestyle wrestlers earned just 1 gold medal and 1 bronze medal. In '73, Lloyd Keaser became the first black wrestler in history of the world to win a gold medal defeating Nasuraleav (USSR) in front of tens of thousands of Iranians urging him to victory and Ben Peterson followed his Olympic gold with a bronze medal. Then the drought -- in 1974, I was the highest US place finisher with an embarrassing 5th. In 1975, again no US wrestler medaled.

Reasons that impacted performance but not excuses:
1. Tehran, Istanbul, and Minsk were unfriendly environments for US athletes.
2. Limited foreign competition opportunities--Tblisi tournament followed by 3 dual in the USSR and the Toledo World Cup followed by 3 duals in the USA were the extent of international competition.
3. The team selection was just weeks before the competition, followed by a short training camp mostly with few workout partners.
4. The team traveled just days before competition with little time to acclimate to the time zone or living conditions.

Yet in 1976, the same U.S. wrestlers and coaches matched the '72 team with 6 medals (though the make-up was less impressive: 1 gold, 3 silver, and 2 bronze).

Reasons that impacted performance:
1. The trials were early in the spring; followed by a pre-wrestle-off training camp where all of the top 6 finishers--who had any hope of making the team--attended. A typical practice for me would be: 1st workout partner, Lloyd Keaser, next John Peterson, next Lee Kemp and when practice finished a scrawny high school wrestler--hired to clean the mats--would tap me on the shoulder and meekly ask me if I would go a few takedowns with him (Dave Schultz).

2. After a short break to return home and regroup, the final wrestle-offs were in Brockport--just an hour or so bus ride from Montreal--followed by a four week training camp. Well attended I would add. Why? -- because the aspiring future US wrestlers were offered the opportunity to go to Montreal as workout partners and stay at a McGill University fraternity house rented by the organization and experience the Olympic movement.

3. Aside from the USA boxers partying into the wee hours the night before our round robin matches, the conditions were generally friendly in Montreal (no time zone change or food adjustments).

Similarly, next year, Istanbul will be unfriendly for US wrestlers but London in 2012 will be a friendly environment. I challenge the coaches to organize the appropriate try-out and training schedule, but more importantly, to devise a set of skills, tactics, and strategies for all of our wrestlers that will provide each of them a plausible path to victory no matter who the opponent. This is no easy task. Before the USSR dismantled, I only had to prepare for Karlsson of Sweden--silver in both freestyle & Greco-Roman in Munich; Date, Japan --Olympic Champ; Barzegar, Iran --World Champ; and just one Soviet--two-time World Champ Ashuraleav. Today the depth may not be greater but the breadth of competition is certainly much wider, i.e. Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Armenia, Belarus. to name a few -- in lieu of the one Soviet.

To the wrestlers: you face the biggest challenge. Only you can implement the plan. You know your weaknesses and must correct them or learn how to mask them. For example, no matter how much time I spent lifting weights, I knew I was never going to become the strongest or fastest, so I made certain strength and speed were not going to be the deciding attributes in my matches. Likewise, the wrestler knows his strengths -- learn how to impose them on each of your opponents. For example, my kinesthetic awareness in a scramble and my ability to master exhaustion were superior to my opponents, so I devised the tactics and strategies so that these attributes would decide the winner.

This leads me to another misnomer: Dan Gable won because of his conditioning--NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH (and the Russians knew that).

Several bloggers mention that Dan Gable stated, "our guys were not doing a good enough job wearing down their opponents." And they then go on to interpret that to mean that Dan is suggesting our U.S. wrestler need to be in better shape. Dan is not suggesting better conditioning. He is suggesting that our wrestlers must master a very subtle skill of imposing their 'will' on their opponents, something he did extremely well and what the Russians feared most.

The Russians combed the countryside to find that elusive wrestler with the 'will' to stand-up to Dan Gable. They thought it was Ashuraleav from Mahachkala, not so -- Dan prevailed. As the Soviet National Coach once said to me, "When conditioning becomes the deciding factor, we will change our training habits. Until then, we will stay with our current strategy: better technique."

Dan Gable won the Munich Olympics without any his opponents scoring a single point. And if my memory serves me well, he scored at least 3 points in every match. Conditioning was not the determining factor in his victories that most think--3x3 minutes, 2x3 minutes, 5 minutes plus overtime, it didn't matter Dan would have won.

The Russians have a similar view towards the rules: As long a wrestler gets 1 pt for a takedown, 2 or 3 if he takes his opponent to his back in the process and his opponent must stay in the center of the mat and wrestle, guess what? The better wrestler wins. And all us who were privileged to be in Moscow, saw it masterfully displayed. Easy enough!

Which brings us to the difference in rules between folkstyle and freestyle. If it were not for the experience of our collegiate wrestlers and the impact on the US Olympic effort, I would not enter this arena. But I will take the risk.

Some have used the soccer-football debate, which is often used as a comparison. I often bring it up for amusement among my international friends, which elicits an immediate response.

"They are different sports and beyond comparison," they demand. "The only similarity is that they are both played on a large field and use a ball--a very different balls I may add. In soccer we are in constant motion with virtually no rest or time-outs. In football the players are draped with equipment, hug each other for 30 seconds and then run a play for 5 seconds. Completely different sports," they argue. I agree, the world is better having both distinctly different sports.

I am not of the opinion that we should necessarily change our folkstyle rules to the international rules. I do feel, however, that the folkstyle rules need improving. Our folkstyle has morphed into a discipline that more closely resembles grappling than wrestling.

Allowing wrestlers to crawl out-of-bounds or use the out-of-bounds as a strategy to avoid wrestling with impunity does not comport with either sportsmanship or American ethics. And interpreting the situation to be a stalemate when one wrestler purposely rolls to his back, grabs the ankles or feet of his opponent, just astounds me. At the least the culprit is stalling.

The officials should immediately start counting, when he reaches 5, if the countering wrestler is unable to get off his back, guess what? The attacking wrestler has control and a takedown and back points should be awarded. But I will let you sort that out.

I am more concerned with the effect folkstyle wrestling currently has on the aspiring U S international wrestlers. When I was a collegiate wrestlers there were significant crossover skills. In fact, to the befuddlement of many of our Russian opponents, several of us -- Ben Peterson in particular -- deployed a switch as an effective counter. Today, wrestling folkstyle seems to instill negative habits and little crossover skills. Given the current folk style rules, our international wrestlers are faced with some difficult decisions.

I am tempted to make some recommendations, but the NCAA coaches would not look kindly on my suggestions.

Stan Dziedzic

The thread that follows is here.

[Jaguar]

Here is a later post by Dziedzic:

After reading some of the responses to my posting, I thought it may be helpful to expand on some of my remarks. Having just completed a manuscript, I am well aware of my tendency to make assumptions regarding my readers.

When I was describing today's folkstyle wrestling as more closely resembling grappling, I did not mean to insinuate that it was not a skill nor did I mean to infer that all of the fans find it uninteresting. I realized "scrambling," for a lack of a better term, has evolved. That is exactly what I would expect given the creative and competitive nature of American athletes. My point is that the evolution has been at the expense of what I refer to as "sound mechanically correct wrestling techniques," which just so happens to also be the techniques used by the best freestyle wrestlers.

There are many forms of grappling that are immensely popular in the world--Senegalese, Lucha Canaria and Erijn gurvan naadam to name just three. The Naadam sports festival in Mongolia fills even the stairways in the 20,000+-seat stadium. The Senegalese wrestling as I have been told is immensely popular. The Washington Post indicated that it "has evolved into a modern sport phenomenon" and that "a match can fill a 60,000-seat stadium."

"Lucha Canaria" I have experienced. In either 1973 or 1974, FILA held the World Cup--Iran, USSR, USA and the host country, Spain--on the Canary Island, Las Palmas. The day before the competition, we witnessed 'lucha canaria' a form of wrestling dating back to the Spanish inquisition. If any part of the grappler's body other that his bare feet touches the ground, he loses. The matches generally last less than a minute and the best grapplers deployed an assortment of very creative maneuvers or skills used to make his opponent's knee or hand touch the ground.

Scattered around all of the Canary Islands are stadiums specifically designed for 'lucha canaris.' In this case the 5,000+-seat stadium was filled to the brim. The next evening, Iran, USSR, USA and Spain wrestled to an empty stadium. Following the World Cup competition, several wrestlers from each of the teams formed a group to grapple against the Las Palmas 'lucha canaris' all-stars, in an again filled-to-capacity arena.

The locals--smoking on their bench before the match--easily beat the intern'l make-up team--at least score wise. As I recall, 100 kg World Champion Gulyutkin of the USSR tossed his opponent, but before his opponent crashed to the ground, Guyutkin's hand touched, rendering him the loser. Though the local Spaniard was declared the winner, I am not sure he felt like a winner as he was guided for medical treatment.

My point is that these styles including folkstyle have a cultural element and there is no need to sacrifice it for the sake of international wrestling. One cultural difference between folkstyle and FS that in my opinion will not change is parterre or mat wrestling. Most of the world takes the view that one wrestler trying to hold down another wrestler as he tries to escape as counterintuitive. They feel it is more sensible for one wrestler to try to turn his opponent. How did I come to the conclusion that it most likely will not change?

In 1984, following my departure as US national coach, FILA's Pres. Ercegan appointed me to a FILA rules committee headed by the then FILA Bureau member Shozo Sasahara of Japan. Shozo understood US folkstyle wrestling and appreciated some of its unique elements. He and Myron Roderick had wrestled in the '56 Olympics (Sasahara-gold--Myron-4th) and later because of their mutual respect Shozo had sent several of Japan's most talented wrestlers to Oklahoma State.

Sasahara also knew the transition from folkstyle to FS at that time was not that difficult, especially @ OSU where Myron believed in a strategy of takedowns and escapes. One example, Uetake--'64 and '68 Olympic champion JPN and 3x NCAA champion @ OSU had no problem converting from folkstyle to FS or vice versa.

The two of us--Sasahara more than me--convinced FILA that an escape would make FS wrestling more active and dynamic. Unfortunately, the intern'l referees never quite understood the concept and the rule-change turned out to be a disaster, which just solidified their earlier belief. Hence, I cannot imagine the intern'l wrestling community incorporating an escape point again. Likewise, I don't think folkstyle rule makers should change the mat wrestling aspect of our sport.

The 2 changes that would--in my (not so humble-a joke for those who know me) opinion--improves our folkstyle and just so happen also make it easier to transition to FS wrestling are:

1. Prevent athletes from crawling out-of-bounds or using the out-of-bounds as a strategy to avoid wrestling. The change would shorten the bout time (out-of-bounds add needless time to a match), improve activity significantly, and enhance the experience of the fans.

2. Introduce consequences for the athlete who purposely 'scrambles' (for lack of a better term) and ends-up in what is currently being interpreted as a stalemate. It will not end as a stalemate, if it truly is a skill or grappling maneuver executed properly. Should a wrestler chose to place himself in a predicament and be unable to advance the position why is it a stalemate? When the bottom wrestler executes a Granby-Roll poorly and the top wrestler holds him on his back, for example, the referee awards back points. Why should the counter-attack of a takedown not have the same consequence for failure?

Last, when I stated, 'I am tempted to make some recommendations,' I was referring to advice to aspiring Olympians not further rule changes. Unless the folkstyle rules are adapted, wrestlers aspiring to be world or Olympic champions will need to make some tough choices. The thought of talented, driven, and able competitors having to make such decisions pains me. A question that has entered my mind: Are the NCAA rule makers more concerned with producing ultimate-fighters than Olympic wrestlers???

It was so much better for the USA wrestling community when the folkstyle and intern'l rules were in harmony.

[Conquistadors]

Pretty well written stuff...for a jock

Of his two suggestions:

1. Prevent athletes from crawling out-of-bounds or using the out-of-bounds as a strategy to avoid wrestling. The change would shorten the bout time (out-of-bounds add needless time to a match), improve activity significantly, and enhance the experience of the fans.

I agree completely. One of the few things that bother me immensely about folkstyle is the "right" of wrestlers to head out of bounds in order to avoid a takedown or to hold onto a wrestler who is trying to escape.


2. Introduce consequences for the athlete who purposely 'scrambles' (for lack of a better term) and ends-up in what is currently being interpreted as a stalemate. It will not end as a stalemate, if it truly is a skill or grappling maneuver executed properly. Should a wrestler chose to place himself in a predicament and be unable to advance the position why is it a stalemate? When the bottom wrestler executes a Granby-Roll poorly and the top wrestler holds him on his back, for example, the referee awards back points. Why should the counter-attack of a takedown not have the same consequence for failure?

I don't agree that scrambling is a negative. In contrast, I think it is one of the most exciting aspects of collegiate wrestling. However, I am not opposed to awarding back points if, during a scramble from neutral, one of the wrestlers is immobile and exposing his back, even if no "control" (i.e., a takedown) has been awarded.

Overall, I am less and less interested in freestyle and G-R as the years go by. There is just so little that I find satisfactory in the rules, tournament organization, etc. And the idea of altering American wrestling. with the quarter-million participants in high school and college, so that a few dozen guys can attempt to make a team once a year is, to me, ludicrous.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Conquistadors

Pretty well written stuff...for a jock

Of his two suggestions:

1. Prevent athletes from crawling out-of-bounds or using the out-of-bounds as a strategy to avoid wrestling. The change would shorten the bout time (out-of-bounds add needless time to a match), improve activity significantly, and enhance the experience of the fans.

I agree completely. One of the few things that bother me immensely about folkstyle is the "right" of wrestlers to head out of bounds in order to avoid a takedown or to hold onto a wrestler who is trying to escape.


2. Introduce consequences for the athlete who purposely 'scrambles' (for lack of a better term) and ends-up in what is currently being interpreted as a stalemate. It will not end as a stalemate, if it truly is a skill or grappling maneuver executed properly. Should a wrestler chose to place himself in a predicament and be unable to advance the position why is it a stalemate? When the bottom wrestler executes a Granby-Roll poorly and the top wrestler holds him on his back, for example, the referee awards back points. Why should the counter-attack of a takedown not have the same consequence for failure?

I don't agree that scrambling is a negative. In contrast, I think it is one of the most exciting aspects of collegiate wrestling. However, I am not opposed to awarding back points if, during a scramble from neutral, one of the wrestlers is immobile and exposing his back, even if no "control" (i.e., a takedown) has been awarded.

Overall, I am less and less interested in freestyle and G-R as the years go by. There is just so little that I find satisfactory in the rules, tournament organization, etc. And the idea of altering American wrestling. with the quarter-million participants in high school and college, so that a few dozen guys can attempt to make a team once a year is, to me, ludicrous.

I think the beauty of these proposals, and of his position, is that these rules changes would make folkstyle better for folkstyle's sake; but they would also make the cross-over easier. It is a win/win.

As for FS/GR, we need something more than collegiate wrestling. We need something to aspire to beyond, even if it is unattainable by most. I imagine that the percentage of football players who are talented enough to play professionally is not all that different than the percentage of wrestlers who are talented enough to make a World Team, given the much larger number of football players nation wide, but what kid doesn't aspire to be a professional football player, or baseball player, etc.? I definitely think we lose something if we give up on the international styles.

[PapaBearSLIM]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

I think the beauty of these proposals, and of his position, is that these rules changes would make folkstyle better for folkstyle's sake; but they would also make the cross-over easier. It is a win/win.

As for FS/GR, we need something more than collegiate wrestling. We need something to aspire to beyond, even if it is unattainable by most. I imagine that the percentage of football players who are talented enough to play professionally is not all that different than the percentage of wrestlers who are talented enough to make a World Team, given the much larger number of football players nation wide, but what kid doesn't aspire to be a professional football player, or baseball player, etc.? I definitely think we lose something if we give up on the international styles.

And just like Olympic/Collegiate wrestling, Pro football/college ball are played differently which is the reason so man Heisman winners manipulate the college rules/game to excel only to flame out in the NFL. Spread offenses and option QBs get you to the top of BCS rankings only to watch the kids you dominated for 4 years play on Sundays. Although it would better prepare more athletes and make scouting easier, the NCAA is not going to change the rules to make the football crossover easier, so I doubt they would make the low revenue generating sport of wrestling any easier to crossover.

I would like to see some rules changes to make folkstlye more exciting and the 2 suggested would do that IMO. But I wouldn't be in favor of any changes simply for the sake of trying to get closer to the international styles.

[sweetsweep22]

I like folkstyle the way it is. The only change I would make is to have the wrestlers start neutral all three periods.

To me, scrambling is probably one of the most exciting elements of American wrestling. Freestyle advocates go on and on about how scrambling is a result of poor technique, and that freestyle requires much better technique. I don't think that's true. In folkstyle, scrambles are usually initiated to fend off a takedown. It is a form of defense that is very effective, and is unavailable to freestyle wrestlers. Most all scrambles involve positions that would allow exposure points in freestyle, even though there is no control. To me, this means it is harder to get takedowns in folkstyle than in freestyle. In freestyle, once you are in on a guys leg, you don't have to worry about him diving in for your ankle or twisting and contorting his body in all the crazy ways folkstyle wrestlers do because they can't or they give up points. So if anything, folkstyle wrestling seems like it would promote technique even more than freestyle, since takedowns are harder to earn and your best bet of avoiding a scramble is to use perfect technique that takes the guy straight to the mat...

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by sweetsweep22

I like folkstyle the way it is. The only change I would make is to have the wrestlers start neutral all three periods.

To me, scrambling is probably one of the most exciting elements of American wrestling. Freestyle advocates go on and on about how scrambling is a result of poor technique, and that freestyle requires much better technique. I don't think that's true. In folkstyle, scrambles are usually initiated to fend off a takedown. It is a form of defense that is very effective, and is unavailable to freestyle wrestlers. Most all scrambles involve positions that would allow exposure points in freestyle, even though there is no control. To me, this means it is harder to get takedowns in folkstyle than in freestyle. In freestyle, once you are in on a guys leg, you don't have to worry about him diving in for your ankle or twisting and contorting his body in all the crazy ways folkstyle wrestlers do because they can't or they give up points. So if anything, folkstyle wrestling seems like it would promote technique even more than freestyle, since takedowns are harder to earn and your best bet of avoiding a scramble is to use perfect technique that takes the guy straight to the mat...

Apples and oranges. I don't even know where to start.