Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

new 3 point takedown....get ready to see tons of tech falls?


Bardamu911

Recommended Posts

I really don't think it will change how anyone wrestles. I watch FS and guys get put on the passivity clock and it doesn't change the way they wrestle. They just realize they are giving up a point. Active guys will be active and guys that counter will still counter. Guys that are passive will continue to be passive. If a guy can take someone down seven times to none I have no problem with it being a tech a fall instead of 14-6.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

You all flunk the class for failure to turn in your homework on time.

It was bugging me to see if TF were down because MD were up at the 2023 tournament.

Nope. They were actually a little below average last year too.

Not much to say here other than the last two years were nothing like the prior five.

Now, if PSU breaks Iowa's total points scored record because of incremental bonus earned through incremental takedown points, is it tainted?

I added margin of victory in the team race to your table.  With the expanded range there is no correlation between a tight team race and # of mnatches with bonus points.  There are likely factors confounding that conclusion - the change of the 4 point NF, COVID, ect.  If I only fit to the data 2008-2015 (before COVID and before the 4 point NF) there does appear to be a weak correlation (r=0.5-0.6) and it's notable that the three closest team races 2009, 2013, and 2014 produced the bonus point victories.  A weak correlation makes sense because the team race only ever comes down to 2-3 maybe 4 teams, and whilst title contending teams have more wresters in the tournament that wrestle more matches its still only at most 40 out of 330 wrestlers with a material interest in the team race.

I had initially proposed margin of victory as influencing things because 2023 was the only true outlier in the first table and last year had been the least competitive team race in decades.  With the new expanded table it seems somewhat likely to me that two things had significant influence on the numbers.  The first was the 4 point near fall rule.  Since it's implementation in 2015-2016 bonus point victories were up in the next 5 year period.  What's interesting is that while there was an increase in both TF and MD there was also a decrease in pinfalls.    The top 5 years for pinfalls were all before the rule changed and there were 4-5 more pinfalls on average in the 8 years before change than the 5 immediately after the change.

The other thing that influencing the numbers happened in the past two years.  I think this could be the influence of the 6th year, but I'm open to other explanations. 

I'd expect the 3 point TD to 1) increase # of MD, 2) increase # of TF, 3) decrease # of PF, 4) increase total matches where bonus points are scored, 5) increase total bonus points scored.

 

BonusPointVictoriesAtNCAAs.png

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2023 at 5:34 PM, WrestleFan12 said:

It's hard to believe that any garden-variety takedown is now the scoring equivalent (or greater) of putting another wrestler on his back for the required count. One is considerably harder than the other. This rule change is just silly, IMO. Thumbs down.

I don't think it's terrible if you add NF up to 5 as well. It would add scoring like the freestyle crybabies want, reward both top and feet offense and still make turning the best scoring opportunity by an enticing margin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2023 at 10:15 AM, JeanGuy said:

I really don't think it will change how anyone wrestles. I watch FS and guys get put on the passivity clock and it doesn't change the way they wrestle. They just realize they are giving up a point. Active guys will be active and guys that counter will still counter. Guys that are passive will continue to be passive. If a guy can take someone down seven times to none I have no problem with it being a tech a fall instead of 14-6.

i agree with the scoring aspect... yes he is superior... but do you think the guy that has been countered successfully 3 times.. is really going to go for it 4,5,6,7 times?

i hope it doesn't slow down the action... but... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlacknGold said:

Does this taint any future scoring records broken by any team? Conference and tournament?

that's a really good point.

i wouldn't say 'taint'. (that's a funny word).

but it's definitely a new, singular, era

TBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, i don't think any title is 'tainted' b/c of the scoring system.

i should have worded my response better.

i think, with increased ability for bonus, comparing a team score in 2023 to 2024 and beyond has to have footnote or context. 

TBD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

i think, with increased ability for bonus, comparing a team score in 2023 to 2024 and beyond has to have footnote or context. 

I hear ya. Curious if there's a footnote behind other scoring records after a change in scoring values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

I hear ya. Curious if there's a footnote behind other scoring records after a change in scoring values?

I have never seen one if there is.

However, I reviewed the history of scoring changes and I think this one is pretty unique. Most of the major scoring changes in the past have had to do with elements that are easily corrected for when comparing across eras. For example, if first place used to be worth 12 and is now worth 16, that is an easy adjustment to make. Likewise, if a tech fall replaces a superior decision and has a different definition and point value, it is not a stretch to make the adjustment if all you know is the match score.

But changing the value of a fundamental element of how you arrive at the score is kind of a big deal and very hard to account for when looking at historical results. If the score was 14-5 whether the 14 came mostly from back points or mostly from takedowns is important. If from back points then it probably stays a major decision, but if from takedowns it probably becomes a tech fall. And given that most scoring comes from takedowns it matters more that a takedown is scored differently than if back points are scored differently.

In the absence of bout scoring sheets from the past, I think you would have to put an asterisk on any score that surpasses Iowa's record and relies heavily on bonus points. You can sort of adjust the current score to the past way of scoring, except that a tech fall relying on takedowns would prematurely end the match and cut off other scoring opportunities. 

The only other times a takedown score was changed since their introduction in 1941 was for a four year period from 1962 to 1965 (first takedown worth 2, each subsequent worth 1). All takedowns being worth 2 was restored in 1966.

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn’t more tech falls be a good thing? If you are looking for a tech fall with takedowns only, you need to get 7 or 8 takedowns while your opponent gets 0. If you can do that, it is total domination and we should get the wrestlers off the mat. No one wants to see that bad of a mismatch for 7 minutes straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2023 at 1:42 PM, Wrestleknownothing said:

Tech Falls by Year:

2015 12
2016 25
2017 33
2018 28
2019 22
2021 28
2022 12
2023 9

How does this compare to the number of falls per year? My guess is there are a lot more falls than tech falls. IMO, it shouldn’t be easier to get a fall than a tech fall, which is why I like making it easier to get a tech. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eagle26 said:

How does this compare to the number of falls per year? My guess is there are a lot more falls than tech falls. IMO, it shouldn’t be easier to get a fall than a tech fall, which is why I like making it easier to get a tech. 

I'm anxiously awaiting Wkn's answer here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

Wouldn’t more tech falls be a good thing? If you are looking for a tech fall with takedowns only, you need to get 7 or 8 takedowns while your opponent gets 0. If you can do that, it is total domination and we should get the wrestlers off the mat. No one wants to see that bad of a mismatch for 7 minutes straight.

That was actually the main reason tech falls came up in the first place. I saw some Wisconsin scores around 50-25 and they would never try to turn. This was 70s and early 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eagle26 said:

How does this compare to the number of falls per year? My guess is there are a lot more falls than tech falls. IMO, it shouldn’t be easier to get a fall than a tech fall, which is why I like making it easier to get a tech. 

I have no idea what a fall is, but further down page 1 is an expanded table that includes MD, TF, and PF.

The average number of majors per tournament was ~98.

The average number of tech falls per tournament was ~17.

The average number of pinfalls per tournament was ~69.

A pinfall was 4 times more likely than a tech fall. If we scored it like poker, the tech fall would be worth more than the pinfall.

Even with the change in scoring rules I am guessing tech falls increase by 100% to 150% which would still make them more rare than a pinfall.

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have no idea what a fall is, but further down page 1 is an expanded table that includes MD, TF, and PF.

The average number of majors per tournament was ~98.

The average number of tech falls per tournament was ~17.

The average number of pinfalls per tournament was ~69.

A pinfall was 4 times more likely than a tech fall. If we scored it like poker, the tech fall would be worth more than the pinfall.

Even with the change in scoring rules I am guessing tech falls increase by 100% to 150% which would still make them more rare than a pinfall.

Sadly this is what I expected.  😞

Edited by ionel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2023 at 11:08 AM, mspart said:

Yeah, I was saying earlier was that they need to increase the points needed to tech fall.   Otherwise I think there will be a lot more tech falls. 

mspart

ELIMINATE the Technical Fall.

If you can't pin the opponent you wrestle the full match - even if it ends up 72-3.

Every wrestler knows they are in for a full match unless they get put on their back. Might help some of the "Lungers" to get in better shape for a full match.

Sure would be nice if they also brought back the Three Minute periods for a full nine minute match.

” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have no idea

A pinfall was 4 times more likely than a tech fall. If we scored it like poker, the tech fall would be worth more than the pinfall.

 

But if in some other galaxy the mythical "pinfall" actually exists, wouldn't it be only half as likely as a pin or a fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jason Bryant said:


It exists in Austin, and wherever WKN lives … and squared circles and bowling alleys across the world.

giphy.gif

Wkn ^^^ a bowler, makes sense, swimmers learn early to stay in their lanes, the whole pin fall thing so ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2023 at 11:26 AM, Wrestleknownothing said:

I have no idea what a fall is, but further down page 1 is an expanded table that includes MD, TF, and PF.

The average number of majors per tournament was ~98.

The average number of tech falls per tournament was ~17.

The average number of pinfalls per tournament was ~69.

A pinfall was 4 times more likely than a tech fall. If we scored it like poker, the tech fall would be worth more than the pinfall.

Even with the change in scoring rules I am guessing tech falls increase by 100% to 150% which would still make them more rare than a pinfall.

I actually thought about typing pinfall just for you, but I couldn’t get myself to do it lol. 
 

Looks like making a tech a little easier will be a step in the right direction 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Eagle26 said:

I actually thought about typing pinfall just for you, but I couldn’t get myself to do it lol. 
 

Looks like making a tech a little easier will be a step in the right direction 

These guys are elite athletes known for their strength, balance and spatial awareness. But @Jason Bryant and @ionel want me to believe they lose because they just fell down?

I'm not buying it, and they shouldn't be selling it.

  • Haha 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area



  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...