Ankle grab

[Not134]

I can appreciate a scramble, but the ankle grab to force a stalemate should be called for what it is...stalling.

[Plasmodium]

Double stall if both wrestlers have nothing but ankles?

[ionel]

20 minutes ago, Not134 said:

I can appreciate a scramble, but the ankle grab to force a stalemate should be called for what it is...stalling.

How do you feel about grabing the wrist from neutral? 

[SocraTease]

That's what Kennedy kept doing to Hamiti.  

It's notable that the most of the few offensive and exciting Iowa wrestlers were largely first trained elsewhere: Eierman, Woods, etc. before arriving to Iowa.

Otherwise, they just emulate the Brands old school tough guy push and shove, strength and aggressiion style and approach.   More defense than offense.

Even what Lee (who is very offensive) does was mostly imported from PA when he arrived in Iowa.  

It's like Iowa is trying to live analog in a digital or virtual world.  

[VakAttack]

They just had Kemermer  leave, who was very offfensive, and Desanto, maybe the most offensive wrestler in history (in terms of output).  Kennedy is typically a high output wrestler (although I agree he wasn't against Hamiti last night).  Then you have Siebrecht and Cass, who are two completely different types of wrestlers, but also offensive.  They do tend to gravitate towards the brawler types, though.

[Not134]

17 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Double stall if both wrestlers have nothing but ankles?

I would agree with this...at least call an immediate stalemate if it wasn't intentional.

[JVStateChamp]

I think the stalling should be applied because one individual is shooting and creating offense, the defensive wrestler grabbing an ankle is not stalling because of the ankle grabbing but more because he is constantly on defense. The argument that he should be hit for stalling because hes holding an ankle is tough, you are pretty much saying he should just let go and give up a take down.

[mspart]

6 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

I think the stalling should be applied because one individual is shooting and creating offense, the defensive wrestler grabbing an ankle is not stalling because of the ankle grabbing but more because he is constantly on defense. The argument that he should be hit for stalling because hes holding an ankle is tough, you are pretty much saying he should just let go and give up a take down.

Agree.

mspart

[Le duke]

Also, what if he wants to go for the far ankle and create his own offense? Should he be penalized for trying to convert, but failing? That's kind of silly, IMO. 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

I previously proposed that touching the ankles should not be allowed period when on top (including when you are on top from neutral defending a shot) and people thought the idea absurd.

[Not134]

9 minutes ago, JVStateChamp said:

I think the stalling should be applied because one individual is shooting and creating offense, the defensive wrestler grabbing an ankle is not stalling because of the ankle grabbing but more because he is constantly on defense. The argument that he should be hit for stalling because hes holding an ankle is tough, you are pretty much saying he should just let go and give up a take down.

I agree with this.  As I said in the original post, I can appreciate a scramble, meaning, if grabbing an ankle creates offense, no problem.  Too many times though, ankle grabs have no intention of creating offense but rather, creating a stalemate situation.  When that happens, the defensive wrestler is not trying to score so call it stalling.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

12 minutes ago, Not134 said:

I agree with this.  As I said in the original post, I can appreciate a scramble, meaning, if grabbing an ankle creates offense, no problem.  Too many times though, ankle grabs have no intention of creating offense but rather, creating a stalemate situation.  When that happens, the defensive wrestler is not trying to score so call it stalling.

what about defensive chest wraps?  The move is done solely to force a stalemate.

[JVStateChamp]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

what about defensive chest wraps?  The move is done solely to force a stalemate.

There are many arguments you can make that moves are done solely for the reason of no scoring, how about an ankle ride on top? Or my pet peeve when a top wrestler has double legs in and has no intentions of scoring while the bottom wrestler gets hit for stalling because he physically cannot build his base. I am okay with calling stalling, but it should be for the reason that an opponent has shown they are merely preventing scoring so ankle grabs, chest wraps, etc. should not be called stalling on first offense.

 

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, JVStateChamp said:

There are many arguments you can make that moves are done solely for the reason of no scoring, how about an ankle ride on top? Or my pet peeve when a top wrestler has double legs in and has no intentions of scoring while the bottom wrestler gets hit for stalling because he physically cannot build his base. I am okay with calling stalling, but it should be for the reason that an opponent has shown they are merely preventing scoring so ankle grabs, chest wraps, etc. should not be called stalling on first offense.

 

See Nagao vs RBY.  He was down 5 and threw double boots for the remainder of the third period.  I guess he did manage to get a riding time point...

[CHROMEBIRD]

2 hours ago, SocraTease said:

That's what Kennedy kept doing to Hamiti.  

It's notable that the most of the few offensive and exciting Iowa wrestlers were largely first trained elsewhere: Eierman, Woods, etc. before arriving to Iowa.

Otherwise, they just emulate the Brands old school tough guy push and shove, strength and aggressiion style and approach.   More defense than offense.

Even what Lee (who is very offensive) does was mostly imported from PA when he arrived in Iowa.  

It's like Iowa is trying to live analog in a digital or virtual world.  

I think the PA guys are helping to evolve the Iowa Style of wrestling. Arguably guys like Kemerer, ADS, Murin have changed the way Iowa wrestles through scramble situations while also adding to their own forward motion offensive style. But it is strange to see the Hawkeye faithful cheer on a funky funk guy like Siebrecht, who wrestles much more like a PSU guy than Iowa. Put him in any other color singlet and he would get booed out of CHA. On the other hand PSU has Max Dean who looks like he came right out of the Hawkeye wrestling room.

[Jimmy Cinnabon]

8 minutes ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

I think the PA guys are helping to evolve the Iowa Style of wrestling. Arguably guys like Kemerer, ADS, Murin have changed the way Iowa wrestles through scramble situations while also adding to their own forward motion offensive style. But it is strange to see the Hawkeye faithful cheer on a funky funk guy like Siebrecht, who wrestles much more like a PSU guy than Iowa. Put him in any other color singlet and he would get booed out of CHA. On the other hand PSU has Max Dean who looks like he came right out of the Hawkeye wrestling room.

Don't forget Kaleb Young, another PA guy who competed well for Iowa

[ugarles]

i don't buy it. ankle grabs and chest wraps and other defensive moves are not retreats, they are counters. keeping your distance, backing up to the slightest flinch, retreating out of bounds? that's stalling. active wrestling that prevents a score has to be allowed. that's what wrestling is. you're engaged with your opponent.

[mspart]

If wrestler A attacks and wrestler B defends by going to the ankles.  OK

If wrestler A attacks and wrestler B defends by going to the ankles a second time.  OK

If wrestler A attacks and wrestler B defends by going to the ankles for a third time, then wrestler B is stalling.

Its a matter of repetition.   If wrestler B doesn't create any offense but is constantly attacked, then wrestler B is stalling.   If wrestler B uses an ankle to counter a TD attempt and win the takedown himself, that is a different matter. 

mspart

[mspart]

1 minute ago, ugarles said:

i don't buy it. ankle grabs and chest wraps and other defensive moves are not retreats, they are counters. keeping your distance, backing up to the slightest flinch, retreating out of bounds? that's stalling. active wrestling that prevents a score has to be allowed. that's what wrestling is. you're engaged with your opponent.

Kyle Snyder used to do a chest wrap to stall out a TD attempt.   Then he got caught by Sadulaev in a Jr High move and was pinned in the WC finals.   I don't think he does the chest wrap anymore.   Granted, there is no much penalty in international wrestling for doing this kind of thing.   The just start you over. 

mspart

[ugarles]

3 minutes ago, mspart said:

Kyle Snyder used to do a chest wrap to stall out a TD attempt.   Then he got caught by Sadulaev in a Jr High move and was pinned in the WC finals.   I don't think he does the chest wrap anymore.   Granted, there is no much penalty in international wrestling for doing this kind of thing.   The just start you over. 

i do think the quick stalemates in international wrestling are better than the much more generous times granted by ncaa refs. you don't even have to be in a stalemate for the ref to blow the whistle and yell at both guys for being boring.

[VakAttack]

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

If wrestler A attacks and wrestler B defends by going to the ankles.  OK

If wrestler A attacks and wrestler B defends by going to the ankles a second time.  OK

If wrestler A attacks and wrestler B defends by going to the ankles for a third time, then wrestler B is stalling.

Its a matter of repetition.   If wrestler B doesn't create any offense but is constantly attacked, then wrestler B is stalling.   If wrestler B uses an ankle to counter a TD attempt and win the takedown himself, that is a different matter. 

mspart

Not really; if one wrestler is attacking so much (like Hamiti last night, or Brooks against Romero as well) the other guy has no time to initiate their own attacks.

[Not134]

If Hamiti and Brooks had time to initiate attacks, so did Kennedy and Romero.  On chest wraps, I have seen these evolve into an offensive scoring situation (e.g., McKee).  But the point is taken.  I like mspart's repetition argument.  Jesse Delgado from a few years back comes to mind.  His whole neutral "offense" seemed to evolve around ankle grabbing a guy (who actually takes risk/shot) and forcing a stalemate.  So frustrating to watch and is the opposite of offensive.  The rules and the enforcement of the rules should always be consistent with rewarding offense.  To that end, in addition to mspart's suggestion, I'll add:

1.  The first takedown is worth 3 points - all others after the first one are worth 2 points (no matter who gets them).  This creates incentive to score first and alleviates the seemingly unfairness of a 2-2 tie after Wrestler A scores a takedown, B eventually escapes, and in the 2nd period, B escapes again.  I'd reward the 1st takedown as a 3-pointer and the score in the above scenario favors the offensive wrestler with a 3-2 score.  More simply, in my opinion 1st TD > 2 escapes.

2.  Riding is only permissible until 1 minute accumulates.  After that, the top man has to be working for the fall and will be dinged (for stalling) for just riding.  This would preserve riding time in spirit since many still appreciate the concept but reigns it in a bit to create more offensive scoring.  No double boots, parallel riding after 1 minute or you get called for stalling.  You'll have to let your opponent go and score from your feet.

[ugarles]

4 minutes ago, Not134 said:

1.  The first takedown is worth 3 points...

2.  Riding is only permissible until 1 minute accumulates.  After that, the top man has to be working for the fall and will be dinged (for stalling) for just riding.  This would preserve riding time in spirit since many still appreciate the concept but reins it in a bit to create more offensive scoring.  No double boots, parallel riding after 1 minute or you get called for stalling.  You'll have to let your opponent go and score from your feet.

Hate 1 but like a modified 2. The problem with forcing someone up at 1 minute is that there is no margin for error on the RT. I'd be more lenient until, say, 1:30 or 2:00 or something. I'd also prefer an international-style "on your feet" to a stalling call when the officials think the attempts to turn are either hopeless or acting. 

Relatedly, while I do think stalling should be called more aggressively, I hate when the guy on bottom is called for stalling when the guy on top has him immobilzed. What's he supposed to do, call in an air strike? His legs are in the air and bent in a way I wouldn't wish on an enemy, his arm is behind his back, he can taste the solution they cleaned the mat with and you think he's stalling?

[dragit]

15 minutes ago, Not134 said:

I like mspart's repetition argument.  Jesse Delgado from a few years back comes to mind.  His whole neutral "offense" seemed to evolve around ankle grabbing a guy (who actually takes risk/shot) and forcing a stalemate.  So frustrating to watch and is the opposite of offensive.  The rules and the enforcement of the rules should always be consistent with rewarding offense.  

These are good thoughtful posts.  Delgado is a prime example of the problem with the sport.  His first two years he attacked, attacked, attacked. He even bragged about it - said he'd take dozens of shots.  And he won a title this way.  And was great to watch.

Then his junior year it was like he'd had some sort of transplant.  He completely reversed, stopped shooting and became the uber ankle grab counter guy.

To me this had to be partly the system to blame.  That he believed that continuing to attack wouldn't keep working and the way to win is low scores and stopping the other guy.

[CementMixer]

7 hours ago, Not134 said:

I can appreciate a scramble, but the ankle grab to force a stalemate should be called for what it is...stalling.

After this weekend we call it the "Kennedy"