All 3 State Champs @ 160

[Truth is Out There]

Freestyle does not reward the skill of sitting on top of your opponent with a double legs on pretending to try and turn your opponent with a power half while waiting for the clock to run out. Many of Illinois' "best" folkstyle wrestlers have perfected this skill.

Freestyle also does not reward spiral riding for 1:30 and not getting called for stalling because you're "off the hips". Many of Illinois' "best" folkstyle wrestlers have also perfected this skill.

Those "perfected skills" (I detect sarcasm intoned) will score you points doing those things in college...

Now add in the way riding is perceived/officiated during OT tiebreaker periods -- you know, when it sometimes denigrates into a simple bull-riding competition.

You want to talk about the differences between free and folk? How about the difference between HS folk and college folk??? Makes no sense how it changes (or, at least no sense I can see). Like changing balls with strikes.

Let me know if you (or anyone) can reconcile all that onto the same page if not the same paragraph... I can't get it into the same library myself.

[Greenskin]

I disagree. Takedown = control, exposure = control, throw = control.

In folkstyle you can pin yourself. The defensive wrestler can win while being totally controlled. In freestyle, the wrestler in control cannot be pinned.

In folkstyle you can score if your opponent lets you up. In freestyle, this is not allowed. You have to earn your points.



With this, I agree. I am simply pointing out that there are some skills that are valuable in folkstyle, but worthless in freestyle as an explanation as to why a wrestler may be better at one style over another.

OK...a good discussion. I will argue that exposure does not equal control. I have seen lots of freestyle exposure points awarded for quick tilts and leg attacks that are countered for points with no "takedown" control. I have seen lots of throws where the opponent rolls through and it is scored two and two. Points in folkstyle throws are usually only awarded after control has been established.

Granby rolls (one of the best of all wrestling techniques) are absolutely useless in freestyle. Side rolls and switches as well have little place. The sports are vastly different (rest between periods being a big one) and I definately have my preference.

[Greenskin]

Those "perfected skills" (I detect sarcasm intoned) will score you points doing those things in college...

Now add in the way riding is perceived/officiated during OT tiebreaker periods -- you know, when it sometimes denigrates into a simple bull-riding competition.

You want to talk about the differences between free and folk? How about the difference between HS folk and college folk??? Makes no sense how it changes (or, at least no sense I can see). Like changing balls with strikes.

Let me know if you (or anyone) can reconcile all that onto the same page if not the same paragraph... I can't get it into the same library myself.

I believe the powers that be were trying to make the sport more fan friendly. When I wrestled in HS there was riding time awarded (and yes our uniforms were buttoned in the crotch and yes we did have Resilite mats). I think college has tried to encourage more action in the sport. That is why they have played around with match length over the years.

I think that a lot of astute coaches need to rethink their position on OT. It used to be "take the bottom and score" but I think I would have to trust my ability to ride that bull and literally hang on. If the ref won't call the stall on top you had better be ready to adapt.

[Truth is Out There]

I believe the powers that be were trying to make the sport more fan friendly. When I wrestled in HS there was riding time awarded (and yes our uniforms were buttoned in the crotch and yes we did have Resilite mats). I think college has tried to encourage more action in the sport. That is why they have played around with match length over the years.

By having riding time??? Really?????

Don't get me wrong. I LOOOOVE riding time. It's the crux of folkstyle wrestling: control. If you can control your opponent for 2 mins then that's a feather for your cap -- and it certainly shouldn't be a raspberry.

I think that a lot of astute coaches need to rethink their position on OT. It used to be "take the bottom and score" but I think I would have to trust my ability to ride that bull and literally hang on. If the ref won't call the stall on top you had better be ready to adapt.

We've certainly seen that approach work recently.

IIRC, the rules literally change in OT... someone correct me if need be but basically the stalling component of riding is diminshed if not deactivated somewhat in OT.

I don't think it matters as much which way you call stalling (or riding) but it should be consistently applied whether it's during a match or in OT and it certainly shouldn't be one way in college and another in HS.

Change the emphasis on getting escapes instead of penalizing good riders. You don't like what happens when someone throws the legs in, don't let them throw the legs in.

If you are in control you've literally done what you need to do. The emphasis for action is on bottom to try and score. If you're in control you've done your job and shouldn't be penalized for staying in control.

That's what college wrestling teaches us.

Just one way of looking at it.

[petersenkid2]

If you are in control you've literally done what you need to do. The emphasis for action is on bottom to try and score. If you're in control you've done your job and shouldn't be penalized for staying in control.

That's what college wrestling teaches us.

Just one way of looking at it.

That is indeed one way of looking at it, but unfortunately it's not the way the NFHS rules look at it. They state that the wrestler on top must wrestle aggressively and attempt to secure a fall. They also state that when the wrestler on bottom is overpowered, he is not stalling.

If the wrestler in control is just working to stay in control and not working to score and secure a fall, he should be penalized according to the rules.

So, the emphasis for action is not on the bottom man when the top man has both legs in, is arching his back to apply hip pressure, and is pounding or grinding the back of the neck with a power half - not trying to turn, but rather, to control and punish. This is an overpowering ride which really takes the responsibility off of the bottom man and places it squarely on the top man - if the rules are to be followed.

I do agree with your statement that if you are on the bottom and you don't want the legs in, then don't let them get in. Very true. But once they're in, the top man must use that advantage he has gained to try and turn and score. If he doesn't, he's stalling.

It's unfortunate how some rules like illegal holds and technical violations are called for the slightest mis-step by a wrestler, (Think: Full Nelson, Locked Hands, cautions for a false start) while others are very often overlooked. (Think: fleeing the mat, stalling)

I think officials should try as hard as they can to learn the rules inside and out, and follow them as closely as possible (using preventative officiating techniques, of course), and that all rules should be given the same amount of respect.

Think about it this way... there is a rule that states that if a wrestler is getting pinned and before the two seconds are up, he begins to bleed, then the official must stop the match, and begin the blood clock while awarding an extra near-fall point. There are plenty of folks who think that the ref should just call the pin. The kid was getting pinned anyway. But, the rule is clear. So it's not up to the ref, or to what the fans want, or even what is considered to be fair... it's what the rules state. The same should be the case for stalling and for fleeing.

[Greenskin]

That is indeed one way of looking at it, but unfortunately it's not the way the NFHS rules look at it. They state that the wrestler on top must wrestle aggressively and attempt to secure a fall. They also state that when the wrestler on bottom is overpowered, he is not stalling.

If the wrestler in control is just working to stay in control and not working to score and secure a fall, he should be penalized according to the rules.

So, the emphasis for action is not on the bottom man when the top man has both legs in, is arching his back to apply hip pressure, and is pounding or grinding the back of the neck with a power half - not trying to turn, but rather, to control and punish. This is an overpowering ride which really takes the responsibility off of the bottom man and places it squarely on the top man - if the rules are to be followed.

I do agree with your statement that if you are on the bottom and you don't want the legs in, then don't let them get in. Very true. But once they're in, the top man must use that advantage he has gained to try and turn and score. If he doesn't, he's stalling.

It's unfortunate how some rules like illegal holds and technical violations are called for the slightest mis-step by a wrestler, (Think: Full Nelson, Locked Hands, cautions for a false start) while others are very often overlooked. (Think: fleeing the mat, stalling)

I think officials should try as hard as they can to learn the rules inside and out, and follow them as closely as possible (using preventative officiating techniques, of course), and that all rules should be given the same amount of respect.

Think about it this way... there is a rule that states that if a wrestler is getting pinned and before the two seconds are up, he begins to bleed, then the official must stop the match, and begin the blood clock while awarding an extra near-fall point. There are plenty of folks who think that the ref should just call the pin. The kid was getting pinned anyway. But, the rule is clear. So it's not up to the ref, or to what the fans want, or even what is considered to be fair... it's what the rules state. The same should be the case for stalling and for fleeing.

I'm really in your corner on this. I don't see a whole lot of difference between throwing both legs in and stalling than having locked hands. The bottom man isn't going anywhere. I especially have a problem when that combination is used to torture the bottom man. This is wrestling not MMA. I can appreciate a guy who wrestles aggressively with the legs but this other stuff bothers me.

Your comment about all rules being enforced equally is great in theory but hard to apply as some rules require judgement calls and others need no interpretation. Ideally, that's what refs should strive for.

[Greenskin]

By having riding time??? Really?????

Don't get me wrong. I LOOOOVE riding time. It's the crux of folkstyle wrestling: control. If you can control your opponent for 2 mins then that's a feather for your cap -- and it certainly shouldn't be a raspberry.



We've certainly seen that approach work recently.

IIRC, the rules literally change in OT... someone correct me if need be but basically the stalling component of riding is diminshed if not deactivated somewhat in OT.

I don't think it matters as much which way you call stalling (or riding) but it should be consistently applied whether it's during a match or in OT and it certainly shouldn't be one way in college and another in HS.

Change the emphasis on getting escapes instead of penalizing good riders. You don't like what happens when someone throws the legs in, don't let them throw the legs in.

If you are in control you've literally done what you need to do. The emphasis for action is on bottom to try and score. If you're in control you've done your job and shouldn't be penalized for staying in control.

That's what college wrestling teaches us.

Just one way of looking at it.

I was referring to shortening some of the periods over the years. I'm not sure how long riding time has been the rule but it was the rule 40 years ago so I wouldn't say college wrestling tried to increase the action in that area and as such was not referring to riding time. Sorry for any confusion.

[Truth is Out There]

That is indeed one way of looking at it, but unfortunately it's not the way the NFHS rules look at it. They state that the wrestler on top must wrestle aggressively and attempt to secure a fall. They also state that when the wrestler on bottom is overpowered, he is not stalling.

If the wrestler in control is just working to stay in control and not working to score and secure a fall, he should be penalized according to the rules.

So, the emphasis for action is not on the bottom man when the top man has both legs in, is arching his back to apply hip pressure, and is pounding or grinding the back of the neck with a power half - not trying to turn, but rather, to control and punish. This is an overpowering ride which really takes the responsibility off of the bottom man and places it squarely on the top man - if the rules are to be followed.

I do agree with your statement that if you are on the bottom and you don't want the legs in, then don't let them get in. Very true. But once they're in, the top man must use that advantage he has gained to try and turn and score. If he doesn't, he's stalling.

It's unfortunate how some rules like illegal holds and technical violations are called for the slightest mis-step by a wrestler, (Think: Full Nelson, Locked Hands, cautions for a false start) while others are very often overlooked. (Think: fleeing the mat, stalling)

I think officials should try as hard as they can to learn the rules inside and out, and follow them as closely as possible (using preventative officiating techniques, of course), and that all rules should be given the same amount of respect.

Think about it this way... there is a rule that states that if a wrestler is getting pinned and before the two seconds are up, he begins to bleed, then the official must stop the match, and begin the blood clock while awarding an extra near-fall point. There are plenty of folks who think that the ref should just call the pin. The kid was getting pinned anyway. But, the rule is clear. So it's not up to the ref, or to what the fans want, or even what is considered to be fair... it's what the rules state. The same should be the case for stalling and for fleeing.

I understand your point and I know you are correct with respect to the rules. I was only trying to reference how said understanding and correctness fly out the window in OT -- I believe the rules even STATE that they will be enforced differently in OT (not sure, too lazy to go look myself). Add in that college rewards what HS penalizes and it gets even more confusing.

MMA rewards time spent in control, I was alluding to how they do it only as a possible alternative which IMO would provide more consistency throughout.

The funny thing (funny meaning strange not that I am laughing at you) from your original post is that by clear-cut interpretation of the rules, sitting on your opponent with the legs in cranking a power half passes the test of aggressively trying to score. You have to go to judgement there and that's when the wheels can come off.

I had a situation in Tulsa once where a kid cradled his opponent, got back points then just sat in the cradle no longer actively trying to secure a pin. It lasted for over a minute. The ref couldn't call stalling because you were in nearfall but the in-control wrestler was pretty much taking a nap (albeit with a strong grip secured).

Had another situation in Tenn where a wrestler had a cradle on his opponent but got put into a compromising situation (nearfall, if not for his retained control) by being sloppy with the cradle. Nearly resulted in a defensive pin but fought it off for almost a minute without ever relinquishing control via the cradle.

These are circumstances where the aspect of control is valued over all else which we already have and routinely see in folkstyle.

Then we have circumstances where it isn't...

In any case, thanks for weighing in with good discussion. I will also spring for nacho cheese for the pretzel I owe you if we ever meet up.

[Truth is Out There]

I was referring to shortening some of the periods over the years. I'm not sure how long riding time has been the rule but it was the rule 40 years ago so I wouldn't say college wrestling tried to increase the action in that area and as such was not referring to riding time. Sorry for any confusion.

Gotcha. I would love to see riding time in HS. I really believe the major reason we don't see it there is because they don't have enough qualified folks to do the clockwork appropriately.

[petersenkid2]

I understand your point and I know you are correct with respect to the rules. I was only trying to reference how said understanding and correctness fly out the window in OT -- I believe the rules even STATE that they will be enforced differently in OT (not sure, too lazy to go look myself). Add in that college rewards what HS penalizes and it gets even more confusing.

MMA rewards time spent in control, I was alluding to how they do it only as a possible alternative which IMO would provide more consistency throughout.

The funny thing (funny meaning strange not that I am laughing at you) from your original post is that by clear-cut interpretation of the rules, sitting on your opponent with the legs in cranking a power half passes the test of aggressively trying to score. You have to go to judgement there and that's when the wheels can come off.

I had a situation in Tulsa once where a kid cradled his opponent, got back points then just sat in the cradle no longer actively trying to secure a pin. It lasted for over a minute. The ref couldn't call stalling because you were in nearfall but the in-control wrestler was pretty much taking a nap (albeit with a strong grip secured).

Had another situation in Tenn where a wrestler had a cradle on his opponent but got put into a compromising situation (nearfall, if not for his retained control) by being sloppy with the cradle. Nearly resulted in a defensive pin but fought it off for almost a minute without ever relinquishing control via the cradle.

These are circumstances where the aspect of control is valued over all else which we already have and routinely see in folkstyle.

Then we have circumstances where it isn't...

In any case, thanks for weighing in with good discussion. I will also spring for nacho cheese for the pretzel I owe you if we ever meet up.

Dvorak. Funny how lunch turns into a pretzel. ;-)

Lunch is on me if you care to claim it...

[Truth is Out There]

Dvorak. Funny how lunch turns into a pretzel. ;-)

I guess I can honor other store's coupons...

Now I have to figure out who I owe a pretzel to?