A closer look at the other side of the argument ...
Seven-point technical fall
David Taylor won by technical fall over Andrew Howe (Photo/Tony Rotundo, WrestlersAreWarriors.com)What happens if a competent wrestler just has a bad opening? He or she shouldn't lose the match because they get behind early, or in the course of a match falls behind by seven points. Juniors, Cadets and women's freestyle matches often experience large swings and they not only come back and win at times, but could use the extra mat time to learn more about the sport and themselves.
Contrary: The new seven-point technical fall gives wrestlers more incentive to put away the match when up by a few points. One of the problems wrestling faces is that the matches can drag out when the outcome is known early on, but the incentive for reward is too low to prompt action. For example a wrestler is up 4-0 early in the first. If the technical fall is 10 points or greater, then the winning wrestler isn't incentivized to expend more energy since it might cost him in later rounds, especially in a one-day format.
There are only VERY rare occasions when wrestlers at the senior level come back after being down seven points, and the benefit of watching those comebacks are far outweighed by the crowd's excitement in seeing a quick and triumphant finish. Remember that for years the appeal of Mike Tyson wasn't that he could go the distance of a boxing match, but that he could knock out opponents in less than two minutes. A wrestler's ability to be judged by the same rules yet still manage to open up a several-point lead shows ultimate technical superiority. The new rules reward ability by giving it an attainable technical fall. That finality, especially early in the match builds excitement, which in the long run will mean more fans.
Five-point throws ending matches
Jordan Holm launched Peter Hicks for five in their first match at the U.S. World Team Trials (Photo/John Sachs, Tech-Fall.com)If a wrestlers is talented enough to land one five-point throw, why wouldn't you want to see them land two or three? Also, what happens if a great wrestler just happens to get caught in a bad position and thrown? The five-point rule means that there is no way for them to recover and climb back to score more points. One mistake and their Olympic career might be over. Wrestling is about continued physical domination, not a single moment of athletic genius.
Contrary: Few Olympic wrestlers have been on the losing end of a five-point throw and recovered to win a medal. Yes, there are some, but if you are to watch the Olympics and your favorite wrestler is on the business end of a belly-to-back it would be tough to explain to a casual viewer how that wrestler might end up winning the match.
The tradition of pinning an opponent has appeared throughout the history of the sport, but is most notably popular in traditional American wrestling, which is a descendant of Irish Collar and Elbow and Cumberland styles of wrestling. As wrestlers improved in the 19th Century and matches took several hours to resolve (causing the popular development of professional wrestling) rules were introduced to help score the event and give it an understandable outcome. Pinning became less frequent, which at the time was also very controversial.
The same progression is occurring in Olympic wrestling where wrestlers have advanced to the point where they should be incentivized for risk, such as a five point throw. By finishing the match fans understand that any time a wrestler is thrown in such a spectacular fashion he/she deserves to lose, and more importantly their opponent deserves to win.
In many popular traditional forms of wrestling the goal is to throw, or otherwise down your opponent from your feet. Even in Kushti, a ground wrestling style in India, exposing your back to the mitti, or mud is penalized like a touch fall, with even accidental exposure costing a wrestler the match. Pinning is NOT a worldwide phenomenon.
Throws are rare and result in excitement. By making them a winning move, wrestling has a popular Hail Mary, or grand slam scenario that can help sell the sport to new fans.
Two three-point moves ending a match
Ryan Mango used two three-point moves to defeat Jesse Thielke in the second match of the best-of-three finals at the U.S. World Team Trials, with the second throw coming when the match was tied 5-5 (Photo/Mark Beshey, The Guillotine) Not only is the rule bad for the wrestlers, but also for the fans. It's already to difficult to explain to fans what constitutes a three-point move, and now we are forcing our die-hard fans, and uninformed Olympic announcers to explain why this strange collection of subjective moves ends a match? Even if all the other rules are intuitive, this rule subverts that progress by making the match difficult to follow for the common fan.
Contrary: Three-point moves aren't all that easy to score. They take a lot of risk to score and often result in some of the biggest action in a match. In Greco-Roman the incentive to have a three-point move has already meant more action. Instead of running out of bounds when wrestlers gain position, or forcing them to the mat, scoring wrestlers now attempt three-point throws which gives fans more of the exciting action we want them to associate to wrestling.
Though a second three-point move can end a close match, once wrestling fans are informed on the rules they will agree that it provides more incentive for action, even in tight matches.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now