pmilk

Back in the 70's they had a rule that if you took two steps backwards, it was an automatic warning. It was a great rule until it just became pushing with no real attempt to attack. Stall calls in the first 10 seconds of a match...7:50 left to avoid getting called again. Consequently, it didn't last too long. So, if someone "steps out" of bounds, he gets penalized? I have watched enough wrestling in my lifetime where I truly cannot determine who went out of bounds first. So, that situation will be left to the ref to determine the guilty party or the silly brick gets thrown and we spend another 3-4 minutes watching video in slow motion several times to determine who went OB. Flow, momentum, stamina, among other things are now affected. Part of one's job is to expose an opponent who is avoiding "wrestling." To do that requires skill and tactical knowledge. The rules for stalling are already in place. Understanding the "stalling" rules either exposes the staller or disguises the staller. Smart wrestlers know how to do both. I really do not understand why being shrewd and clever to work the rules to your favor is so repulsive. What many of you are proposing is just moving more to freestyle. Why?

As I have stated before; wrestling is about control. you score because you control the tie-ups, top position, bottom position, the setups, the timing of the move, the pace, the defense, and to an extent...the clock time, among other things. I will always disagree that if the bottom man cannot be turned, then he should get a "free up," ala freestyle. Folkstyle requires one to be competent in all three disciplines: neutral, top, bottom. There is only 7min to wrestle...how much of it is mat wrestling? So, expecting everyone to turn an opponent like an "over easy" egg is just not realistic. And just because you cannot turn him does not mean you are stalling. Besides, not your fault he sucks on bottom. Whether one has legs in, a claw, a spiral, tight waist/chop, etc., the impact is all the same and similar to what KL stated.. 1. The bottom man gets tired from carrying his weight and the top man's 2. The bottom man isn't scoring any points and the clock is running down 3. The bottom man gets frustrated and may walk into a setup for back points or a pin 4. In college, accumulation of riding time over one minute is worth a point and that can be a huge difference in the outcome of a match. 5. Fatigue from not being able to get out, transfers to the feet. His reactions are slower, his anticipation is off, and if the match is close, he'll take some unnecessary shots and give up even more points. The implications are obvious. 6. For the rider, this is a great way to rest and kill time. All you have to do is look busy and keep the ref happy. The key here is LOOK BUSY...when you stop looking busy, you get called for stalling. That's what stalling on top is, or any position for that matter. I'm on top with 30 left and a stall call. I'm catching an ankle on the whistle for the obligatory 4 count, change off to tight waist/chop/knee up the butt...let him come up a little change to claw or a spiral, he posts and I bump his elbows with my knee to flatten him out, catch his wrists and drive him over them....30 secs killed...am I stalling? Yep, I am...Can they call me? nope! I was BUSY working things. Turning him never enters my mind. Same situation in neutral; up by 1 with 30secs left and a stall warning...Let's say I hit a quick single and can't finish..15-20 sec have passed..stalemate...we start again, I shoot again and get stuck on a single..time runs out. Am I stalling? If it's me, personally, my answer is YEP! I'm stalling like a big turd, but they can't call me. My whole intent was to shoot and put myself in a position so I don't get countered and scored on...make it look like I'm trying to score, but I'm just killing the clock and waiting to get my hand raised. Works like a charm.

First, how many years do you think they have been trying to address “stalling?” Next, why can’t he get out? I was taught how to prevent legs, get out of legs, and neutralize legs, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent a spiral and get out of a spiral, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent my ankles being caught and if they did, I was taught how to counter and get out of ankle rides, so why can’t he? I was taught how to prevent leg laces and I learned how to get out of them, so what’s preventing him from doing the same? And not just get out…but score points. In your scenario, how do you “stall your way to a ride out” without getting called for stalling? If you read the details of my posts on this subject you should discover that I don't encourage “doing nothing” on top. There are change offs and lots of movement while using leverages, torques, imbalances, and wt to keep him occupied, make him tired, frustrate him, run the clock, acquire a pt for RT, and he’s not scoring. And you’re keeping the ref happy. That’s not stalling. That’s just being smart about using the rules to one’s advantage. From 8th grade thru college, I have never, ever been warned for stalling on top or bottom. Wrestling is a thinking man’s game. Furthermore, if I knew someone could gain a point for every 30 seconds of RT, I’m doing two things: 1) learn how to get out effectively/efficiently and, 2) Learn how to control the top position. To me, this should equate to more active mat wrestling and more attempts for TD’s to put one in position to acquire the RT points and then to, consequently, get off bottom to limit RT points. Right now top man can “grasp” an ankle for 5 seconds. The bottom man does not have to react or wrestle any further because the rule will help him free his ankle. Hypothetical: Let’s pretend the rule was 15 or even 30 seconds on an ankle for each grasp. Do you really think the guy on bottom would still be compelled to do absolutely nothing for 15/30 seconds waiting for the time limit to kick in for him to let go while RT accumulates? I don’t. For some reason, you and others, are equating control to stalling and doing absolutely nothing at all. “Looking busy” is an art…people do it in jobs all the time. The one’s that get fired didn’t learn those techniques. Same in wrestling…do it well and no one bothers you…do a lousy job and you get dinged. I keep reading that the rules state you “must be working for a fall.” Tilts are not working for a fall…tilts are working for a tilt, so technically, to me, that could be construed as stalling…who gets pinned with a tilt? I believe my hypo brings mat wrestling back into demonstrating a comprehensive array of skill sets. Freestyle is basically TD’s and that’s seems where we are headed.

alex, first of all, you responded with an immediate assessment of the RT proposal, which indicated to me that you obviously had a well thought out logic that you could expound on to explain your presumptions, which I would happily respond back to. Secondly, starting a sentence with "Bro chill" does not lend itself to having a productive dialogue...at least to me it doesn't. Because I may have a different perspective certainly doesn't mean I am somehow "out of control," " angry," or "losing it," (quotes are mine) which "Bro chill" implies. I would suggest that you and 103 go back and read my other posts regarding riding/stalling, and if those aren't comprehensive enough I will be happy to present more detail. So with that, I look forward to your position that it would "mean more stalemate calls with neither top or bottom wrestler progressing," since most of my position is already on here. Pat...

nice dodge...or maybe you're just stalling....but not smartly. I will gladly explain my logic after I read yours.

alex...could you kindly explain to me how more points for RT would equate to increased stalemates and no progression on top or bottom? thanks. Pat

Wrestling is about control. Control the tie-ups, control his wrists, control his hips, control his head, control his elbows, control his ankles, etc. Mat wrestling and especially the issue of stalling always intrigues me. It was very clear to me that my responsibility on bottom was to control that position, regardless of the top man’s tactics. Conversely, on top, it was my responsibility to control that position regardless of my opponent’s tactics to prevent it. Pretty much all of wrestling is predicated on stimulus/response mechanisms that lead to CONTROL. Just like neutral, there are things that one can do on bottom to create a response/reaction that will allow him to set the top guy up for an escape/reversal…there are stimuli that one can apply to set the bottom guy up so that he will continually walk into traps that won’t allow him to escape, or it may allow pinning combinations. CONTROL. But, folks are nuts to think/expect that everyone should be working for a pin. What for? Why can’t he work just to win if he’s wrestling within the parameters of the rules? Ok, so throw a half here, reach for a cradle there, throw some legs, do a claw, spiral, catch a wrist and grunt a few times like you’re tying to tilt him…obligation met “working for a fall,” match ends, you win. None of those options are available when you have a guy on bottom who is very well educated on how to get out and hell bent on doing it. You have to hate being on bottom. Really good wrestlers are savvy enough to stay out of pinning combos, so the best you can do is to beat them with superior strategy and “smart stalling.” Like it or not, that’s what smart wrestlers can do, they CONTROL the rules and "smart stall." When you are in a tight match with a quality opponent, you just cannot, or should not, take foolish risks and jeopardize your lead. Know the rules and how to work them to your advantage. I still maintain that awarding 1pt for every 30 seconds of RT will eliminate a whole lot of issues…particularly stalling from top/bottom.

Read the stalling rule and that is the template that guides how you on how to "smart stall." It's a rather simple plan. Get ahead, stay ahead, get your hand raised. Wrestle within the rules. For the fella who "lost all sorts of matches in many different ways," all I can say is that perhaps you could have benefitted from the smart stalling strategy, unless you were never ahead. And you are correct, I should have explicitly stated that no one should be smart enough to manipulate the rules to their advantage to beat an opponent who isn't as gifted mentally. I was never bitter when I've lost, I was mostly livid....I was only bitter that I didn't wrestle smarter. Actually, the rule changes are the gradual continuation of eliminating folkstyle and transitioning to freestyle. Bummer.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but, can someone explain to me what stalling is and what a boring match is? I'm just guessing here, but is a wrestler who is 1-2pts ahead on a top notch, high caliber opponent supposed to take silly risks to please the fans or is he supposed to do what is necessary to win the match for himself and the team? I mean, if one is "stalling" and it's obvious, then he needs to be called, but if he's active and actually wrestling and doing the things as prescribed in the rule book to avoid being called for stalling, even tho he's not scoring and protecting his lead, then what is the problem? Did some of you lose to folks who got ahead, stayed ahead, and killed time effectively and if so, why weren't you ahead so you could have used the same mechanisms to win a match against a very tough opponent. It's easy to run the score up against an inferior competitor, but with top notch guys, you have to play chess and that's just the way it is even if you don't like it. High scoring matches tell me that both wrestlers made a lot of mistakes. That's generally how points are scored in all sports. Low scoring wins tells me that both wrestlers made few mistakes, were very calculating, and did not take foolish risks. A lot of this comes down to coaching. Good athletes are very coachable and understand/learn the nuances of the game. Good coaches know how to "program" their athletes for all kinds of situations. If you have never been to the top of the mountain, you may not understand what it takes to get there. You aren't going to TF or pin everyone. Along the way you're going to win some matches 2-1, 3-2, 4-3, OT, etc., some may be boring or appear to be "stalling," and to expect "fireworks" or "recklessness" to please the crowd for every match is just so unrealistic....and foolish.

gimp...yes, freshman were eligible a couple years before my freshman year. My brother Tom was seeded #1 at 134 the 1970 NCAA's his freshman year in. Lost to Keller from Okie State in the semi's 5-4. And yes, there were a lot of rumors about "under the table" scholarships. Again, I don't know if there was an NCAA limit...I just know there were way more than 9.9 full rides on our team in '71-72. Paul, I knew NE Ohio was very tough and I knew Maple Hts. was tough, but I really didn't follow the national scene much. My dad always talked to us about how good PA, NY, and NY were...especially on mat wrestling. He'd always tell us that if we were going to wrestle in college "you better learn how to get your ass off bottom or they'll wear you out!" He also admired Roderick (Okie State) and Tommy Evans (Okla Univ) for their td's and stand-ups. So their philosophies and techniques played a very prominent role in the style he developed at Maple. Roderick used to say, "If I can take you down, and I can get away, how are you going to beat me?" Sage words indeed.

Paul, As far as I know, according to the NWHOF and Jay Hammond (deceased- History of Collegiate Wrestling), I am still the youngest NCAA Champion in history at 18yrs. 3mo. exactly. Had Lee Kemp won it his freshman year, he would have been the youngest beating me by a week. Freshman wrestlers back in the day were very rare, mainly, because athletes weren't held back like many are today. That extra year or so of maturity helps now. Also, back then, there really wasn't a limit on how many scholarships wrestling could have, like today (9.9). If a school could afford to give 15 full rides for wrestling, they could. If there was an NCAA limit, I wasn't aware of it. It was always rumored that at Iowa State, everyone was on full ride. I was a walk-on, but I know there were more than 15 guys on full ride and several more on partials my freshman year. There was also no limit on how many kids could be on a college wrestling team and I think the limit now is 30 or something like that. My freshman year I believe we started with close to 60 wrestlers and then they'd start to drop out as the season progressed. There were close to 170 (maybe more) D1 programs back then and now we're down to about 76 or so. D2 champions, runners-up, and thirds plus D3 Champions and several wild cards were allowed into the D1 NCAA's. Very, very competitive. Check out some of the brackets back in the 70's and some of them had like 37-40 guys in a bracket...8 min matches, weigh-ins could be nite before or the next morning, 1lb allowance in Jan, 2lb allowance in Feb, and 1lb allowance each day of the NCAA...so on Sat nite finals...126 was actually 130...That was a good rule. Everyone had to make flat wt. before they could take advantage of the wt allowances.

haha...the rules have changed many times to address "stalling" ...smart wrestlers figure out how to work the rules to their advantage and they will figure out how to "smart stall." That was the part of wrestling I always hated...being outsmarted by an opponent, not the rules.

Paul, Thanks for your kind words...Jimmy Brown was my only loss my junior year in HS. He won 3-2 in the State Semi's at 107lbs, and yes, he was pretty tough. My sophomore year at MSU, we were ranked #1 and UM was #2...Jim was UM's 118 and my head coach, Grady Peninger, came into the locker room and told me that he thinks Brown might bump up to 126 to wrestle me since he beat me in HS. That way UM could possibly win the first two matches instead of maybe just one. I was so hoping they would bump him up...but they didn't! They ended up beating us anyway. My history has always been, if I beat someone the first time, I never lose to him in future matches and if I lose to someone the first time, I have never lost the ensuing encounters. So he's one up on me..forever! I had a lot of respect for Jim, for one, I'm not easy to beat and he did it, and two he had a very nice career at UM. The only guy in my entire career to beat me both times we ever wrestled was Mike Frick, Lehigh. In fact at the East/West All Star match in Madison, Wis., in '76 Mike was at 142 and I was at 134. When we were taking the group picture, we were next to each other and I had some brownies and he was eyeing them up and down. I offered a couple of big pieces to him hoping that would make him think about staying at 42...damn, he didn't take any and ended beating me in the finals in Tucson. Look back at some of the guys he beat. I think that year he started at 150 and ended up at 134 for NCAA's. He beat Churella (at 150) in the Midlands that year something like 7-1 but he has nice resume of former and future NCAA champions that he had beaten during his career. Anyway, thanks for your comments and reliving the pain of remembering Jim Brown! haha.

103..you are correct! I was actually stalling: by running the clock out, keeping my lead, not taking risks... but I WAS scoring at the same time. RT is scoring. Getting him frustrated and tired was scoring. Feeling him quit underneath me was scoring. Scoring to me didn't necessarily mean points. It meant that I had control and an edge. That translates to his reactions being slower if/when he gets to neutral, which then makes my job easier. On top was a rest for me and a lot of work for him because of how I was using, weight, torques, leverages, and imbalances to make him fight hard to stay even and HIM not get called or stalling. Any "turn" or pinning combination requires tying up or anchoring wrists, ankles, arms, legs, waist, etc. "Stalling" is obvious. Smart stalling is not. No ref could assume that with all the action, movement, change offs, and "turn" attempts, that I was stalling...because I wasn't according to the rules. The only time it was obvious was in the last 20-30 seconds of a match, in neutral, with a very good opponent or in the closing seconds of a championship match (not all of them tho). Usually, that's when an opponent will try "desperation" techniques...which are very easy to see coming and counter. Since we had no TechFall rule, there was no point to take a risk that might not work out well for me. Get ahead, stay ahead, wrestle smart (smart stall), work the clock, get my hand raised. There's a lot more to this...I haven't even gotten into edge of the mat strategies, off the whistle strategies, scouting strategies, technique strategies, drilling strategies, etc. You also have to remember, back then we did not get to avoid top or bottom...everyone had to take top and he had to take bottom if he didn't get pinned along the way...and the matches were 8 min...long freaking time to wrestle.

103...again, you miss the point and beauty of stalling being a science. It's virtually undetectable until the very end. The constant change offs and action on top is "wrestling." So every batter must try to hit home runs and every boxer must try for knockouts? So if they get a base hit, are they "stalling?" And if they don't get a knockout, are they stalling? There are punchers and boxers and there are hitters and sluggers. The bottom man is responsible to carry the action as well. I have watched some incredibly exciting 2-1 matches in my lifetime. High scoring matches tell me one thing...lots of mistakes from both wrestlers. That's how points are scored in my opinion...someone makes a mistake or you make them make a mistake. Some folks make very few mistakes...