The 3-Point Takedown - Folkstyle's Sea Change
- Thread starter Wrestleknownothing
- Start date
That would be a review for a takedown. We could see takedown reviews end in step out points instead. But challenging the step out wouldn't be allowed. I also say 1 point for a failed challenge. No more BS bricks to get a break
Lunger bricks are a pox on the sport.
You'd think NCAA Wrestling would've cringed hard enough to do something about it, when Rock Harrison gushed about Kevin Dresser using a lunger brick on an obviously doomed challenge in the nationally televised Iowa-Iowa State dual (IIRC it was the 174 Kennedy-Gaitan match). And you'd be an idiot for thinking so.
Rules were changed last summer and can't be changed again until next summer 2027. They meet on odd # years and make changes. I think its BS and they should meet yearly
Yeah, I know ... and I have sub-zero expectations of it being addressed in 2027.
I'm not sure I agree with rule changes annually. Part of me agrees. Another part of me says that there's a high chance of annual changes intermingling with each other, so that we will rarely understand the effects of any one change. Would love to be wrong ... but my job says good luck with that.
IMO USA Wrestling should have some kind of agreement between the varying levels, so that intended rules changes can be tested at big offseason events like Super 32 regardless of age group. Big enough event to get good data, and offseason so it doesn't hurt anybody's records. Baseball is far smarter about this, testing rule changes in the minor leagues first. Wrestling, less smart.
We have Cael to blame for all of this.
"It's just a game, go out and score points, and have FUN ... it's okay to lose."
If Cael didn't introduce this mindset to the sport, everything would still be copacetic. Coaches who believe that 'winning is the only thing' have had to adapt. Now it's 'win at any cost' even if it means not wrestling for 6.5 minutes.
Rather than trying to outwrestle us, they try to steal a WIN. To them, that's all that matters. If a ref does have the temerity to call stalling, they are sure to jump down his throat so that he knows better next time.
I do feel for the refs, they are in a tough spot, but right now they are nescient coconspirators in the plot. The rules are in place, the refs just have to call the obvious.
"It's just a game, go out and score points, and have FUN ... it's okay to lose."
If Cael didn't introduce this mindset to the sport, everything would still be copacetic. Coaches who believe that 'winning is the only thing' have had to adapt. Now it's 'win at any cost' even if it means not wrestling for 6.5 minutes.
Rather than trying to outwrestle us, they try to steal a WIN. To them, that's all that matters. If a ref does have the temerity to call stalling, they are sure to jump down his throat so that he knows better next time.
I do feel for the refs, they are in a tough spot, but right now they are nescient coconspirators in the plot. The rules are in place, the refs just have to call the obvious.
Last edited:
Not damning for you. For the people that made the TD 3 points without considering there would be other effects.
I probably should have said DEVASTATING to lessen confusion about my meaning.
Pax. The analysis was compelling and coherent and I appreciate the effort it took to produce.
Who has mastered the 3-Point Takedown?
Vince Robinson is 7-0 in the past two tournaments in 0 or 1 takedown matches. He has a pair of 4-2 wins, a pair of 4-1 wins, a 5-1 win, a 3-2 win and a 2-1 win. That is the most such wins by any wrestler in the three years of 3-point TD - and he only needed two of the years to do it. Honorable Mention to Patrick Kennedy (6-0).
Wrestlers with the most (8) 0 or 1 TD matches are Caleb Smith (6-2), Stephen Little (5-3) and Ben Kueter (4-4).
And who needs to consider a second takedown?
Most high volume, low scorers do well with the strategy though there are four wrestlers who may want to consider a second takedown. There are the wrestlers who have 7 such matches with a losing record (all are 3-4): Joey Blaze, Stevo Poulin, Evan Frost, and Mac Stout.
There are three wrestlers with a 1-4 record: Dayton Pitzer, Cam Steed, and Dean Peterson.
Nine wrestlers are 1-3.
Forty-three wrestlers are 0-2, 0-3, or 0-4.
Vince Robinson is 7-0 in the past two tournaments in 0 or 1 takedown matches. He has a pair of 4-2 wins, a pair of 4-1 wins, a 5-1 win, a 3-2 win and a 2-1 win. That is the most such wins by any wrestler in the three years of 3-point TD - and he only needed two of the years to do it. Honorable Mention to Patrick Kennedy (6-0).
Wrestlers with the most (8) 0 or 1 TD matches are Caleb Smith (6-2), Stephen Little (5-3) and Ben Kueter (4-4).
And who needs to consider a second takedown?
Most high volume, low scorers do well with the strategy though there are four wrestlers who may want to consider a second takedown. There are the wrestlers who have 7 such matches with a losing record (all are 3-4): Joey Blaze, Stevo Poulin, Evan Frost, and Mac Stout.
There are three wrestlers with a 1-4 record: Dayton Pitzer, Cam Steed, and Dean Peterson.
Nine wrestlers are 1-3.
Forty-three wrestlers are 0-2, 0-3, or 0-4.
Last edited:
In the "You Can't Stop Them, You Can Only Hope To Contain Them" category....
Sadly it is a marginally effective strategy to lock fingers, dance to the edge, work the knee, circle, and disengage.
PSU has an absurd 86.4% winning percentage (102-16) since 2024 in multi-score matches. But it drops to 71.7% (33-13) in 0 or 1 TD matches.
Sadly it is a marginally effective strategy to lock fingers, dance to the edge, work the knee, circle, and disengage.
PSU has an absurd 86.4% winning percentage (102-16) since 2024 in multi-score matches. But it drops to 71.7% (33-13) in 0 or 1 TD matches.
I think the solution is to take the stalling call away from the referee's hand. Otherwise, all the stalling calls are subjective. I propose that if wrestler "A" takes three straight shots to wrestler "B" no shots, that's an automatic stall against wrestler B. It has to be a legitimate shot, not a half effort shot to count though. This way, wrestler "B" would have to keep up with wrestler "A." I thought about this for awhile and I really think this would work. Of course, this would work only in neutral position. Imagine wrestling against Mesenbrink with this proposal...
Last edited:
not a bad idea but it becomes subjective when the ref has to define legitimate. Also, if I am wrestling MM with all his non-stop shooting, I am not necessarily stalling... just can't fit a shot in between his. Bottom line for me, ref has to understand what stalling is and call it. Pretty much knows when you're backing up, backing up and going to a knee, standing on the boundary line... The one thing I think they should do is evaluate stalling regardless of score or period. Hard to do since they do keep track of score but stalling in the first period is as egregious as in the 3rd with 10 seconds left.
"Pretty much knows when you're backing up, backing up and going to a knee, standing on the boundary line."
Doesn't matter if you're backing up, on the knee, or standing on the boundary line..., if you don't shoot and your opponent took 3 straight shots, stalling should be automatically called on you with my proposal. I will say that if neither wrestlers shoot due to your opponent on the knee or standing on the line or whatever, I propose stalling should be called against the both wrestlers, fair or not. This way, you'll get closer to when stalling call becomes a point scored.
Problems with calling stalling are as old as wrestling itself. This was written in the 1928 wrestling guide - and it could have been written today:
"The Committee on Wrestling believes that "stalling', is the outstanding drawback of intercollegiate wrestling and urges all coaches and officials to use their influence to eliminate this all-too-common practise, and to encourage fast and aggressive wrestling. In many instances, referees are criticised for not enforcing penalties in wrestling contests and in many cases defend their position by stating that the coaches do not wish to have these penalties enforced, and, therefore, the committee requests that each of the competing coaches endeavor to secure from the .other coaches compliance with the full enforcement of the rules and so instruct the referee before the bout starts."
I just do not see human nature changing. We all respond to incentives. The refs are responding to the crap they catch from coaches and fans - and apparently have been doing that for 100 years.
The key then becomes to change the incentive structure. The 3-point TD had the unintended consequence of incentivizing MORE stalling. Like George Costanza, if all your instincts are wrong, then do the opposite. Cut the takedown back to at least 2, and maybe even 1.5 (which sounds silly - I know).
"The Committee on Wrestling believes that "stalling', is the outstanding drawback of intercollegiate wrestling and urges all coaches and officials to use their influence to eliminate this all-too-common practise, and to encourage fast and aggressive wrestling. In many instances, referees are criticised for not enforcing penalties in wrestling contests and in many cases defend their position by stating that the coaches do not wish to have these penalties enforced, and, therefore, the committee requests that each of the competing coaches endeavor to secure from the .other coaches compliance with the full enforcement of the rules and so instruct the referee before the bout starts."
I just do not see human nature changing. We all respond to incentives. The refs are responding to the crap they catch from coaches and fans - and apparently have been doing that for 100 years.
The key then becomes to change the incentive structure. The 3-point TD had the unintended consequence of incentivizing MORE stalling. Like George Costanza, if all your instincts are wrong, then do the opposite. Cut the takedown back to at least 2, and maybe even 1.5 (which sounds silly - I know).