ADVERTISEMENT

Cumulative scoring

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
33,417
63,974
113
This was on one of the podcasts last week, and the conversation started with a reasonable premise - it doesn't feel right that a one-point win is worth as many team points as a solid five or six point win - but then wandered into silliness with suggestions that cumulative scores were kept rather than the current method. I veered way off track by suggesting that since a tech-fall would now be worth fifteen points, a fall would need to be twenty points. One could quickly see that a team could easily a meet with just two wins, and would make a fall worth 20 times (!) as much as a one point.

It did, however, make me start re-thinking majors and tech-falls. As difficult as it is to score at the higher levels, I wonder if it would be better and more exciting if a Major were a five point win rather than eight, and instead of a tech fall we awarded a "Super Major" for a margin of ten points. But rather than stopping the match once a "Super Major" had been awarded, they keep wrestling so somebody can still win by fall.

Hear me out. I've never liked tech falls, it seems wrong that with one wrestler dominating another, a scoring move could actually cause them to forfeit their chance to use the remaining time to achieve a pin. This is sort of a side issue, but if we awarded five teams points for victories over ten points, it would be pretty much required that the match not stop and tech-falls go away.

But I like the 5 and 10 margins instead of the 8 and 15 points because it would, imo, add excitement. Currently if a guy is carrying a solid 3 or 4 point margin into the last minute there is every incentive to just "sit" on the lead -- because 8 points is out of reach. We'd see more guys trying to score right up to the end, with team points on the line. It also more accurately reflects the notion than a solid five point win is a significantly better achievement than a one or two point win.

Likewise, today once a wrestler achieves the eight point margin in the third period they are also likely shut down and coast to the end -- a tech fall being out of reach. But with ten points awarding another team point, there again would be potentially more excitement and more meaningful action in the third period of a one-sided match.

Crazy?
 
I'm gonna go with not crazy. I'm always for rewarding initiative and aggression. There would be lots of ways to revise the scoring system, and I'm not sure what's best, but encouraging action sounds great.
Another way to tweak scoring would be to award a 1/2 team point for "winning" a period. For example in Spencer's match yesterday, he'd have gotten and extra 1/2 team point for scoring more in the 1st period. Picc would have a 1/2 team point for winning the 3rd period (I don't remember who scored most in 2nd period, but they would earn an extra 1/2 team point that way). This would encourage action by both guys in each period
 
  • Like
Reactions: artradley
Also, remember the flip side. Winning by 15 does in fact protect you from gassing in the 3rd and/or getting hit by a big move, ala Rohn and getting stuck.

So, yes, you can no longer get the 1 extra point for a FALL, but you also no longer have a chance to lose the match!
 
Also, remember the flip side. Winning by 15 does in fact protect you from gassing in the 3rd and/or getting hit by a big move, ala Rohn and getting stuck.

So, yes, you can no longer get the 1 extra point for a FALL, but you also no longer have a chance to lose the match!

I understand that, but why a magical number at which point we decide not to allow a fall? The very premise of wrestling is to pin your opponent; we don't stop a 15-round boxing match if one guy loses nine of the first ten rounds.

It just make sense to me to that a match continues to the end. And it doesn't make sense to remove your chance to earn six points because you're ahead by too much. How many guys do you think, once they are ahead by fifteen would choose to quit if given the choice?
 
I understand that, but why a magical number at which point we decide not to allow a fall? The very premise of wrestling is to pin your opponent; we don't stop a 15-round boxing match if one guy loses nine of the first ten rounds.

It just make sense to me to that a match continues to the end. And it doesn't make sense to remove your chance to earn six points because you're ahead by too much. How many guys do you think, once they are ahead by fifteen would choose to quit if given the choice?

I am sure most of it simply comes down to speeding things up and entertainment purposes. Many times blowouts are as boring, if not more so, than a Tsirtsis match(I may be exaggerating a bit). Also, if you score 15 more points than the other guy and haven't been able to get the FALL, I am not convinced you can nor deserve more time to try to do so.
 
I am sure most of it simply comes down to speeding things up and entertainment purposes. Many times blowouts are as boring, if not more so, than a Tsirtsis match(I may be exaggerating a bit). Also, if you score 15 more points than the other guy and haven't been able to get the FALL, I am not convinced you can nor deserve more time to try to do so.

Maybe only award tech fall bonus (over major) if there are back points involved?
 
Maybe only award tech fall bonus (over major) if there are back points involved?
They did that for a while actually.....


Edited to add: Unless you are saying let the match continue past a 15 pt. differential if near fall hasn't been achieved?
 
I'm a fan of smaller margins between bonus point categories for many of the points mentioned. If you make the differences four-point increments, one of the wrestlers is always just two points away from bettering their team's situation. You could add the superior decision back in and have a major (4+), superior (8+), and tech (12+), with the caveat that the leading wrestler could choose to continue the bout (they used to do this in freestyle, one guy would get up by 10 and they'd ask if you wanted to go for the fall to get more classification points). If you choose to continue, you can lose the tech or even lose the match, it's a risk you take. I'd like to see that at the college level.
 
The very premise of wrestling is to pin your opponent;

Thought the very premise was to CONTROL your opponent. When you get 15 points above his point total you have done that pretty convincingly.

I agree. I just think you shouldn't forfeit your right to earn six points once you've crossed some numerical barrier. I've seen guys, down by 13 or 14 in neutral, fall to their belly to stop the match and save a team point.
 
I understand that, but why a magical number at which point we decide not to allow a fall? The very premise of wrestling is to pin your opponent; we don't stop a 15-round boxing match if one guy loses nine of the first ten rounds.

It just make sense to me to that a match continues to the end. And it doesn't make sense to remove your chance to earn six points because you're ahead by too much. How many guys do you think, once they are ahead by fifteen would choose to quit if given the choice?
I don’t think that is the premise of wrestling. I think control is, and pinning may be the ultimate demonstration of control, but wrestling isn’t based on a pin. I think that’s important when asking good questions like you are.
 
I understand that, but why a magical number at which point we decide not to allow a fall? The very premise of wrestling is to pin your opponent; we don't stop a 15-round boxing match if one guy loses nine of the first ten rounds.

It just make sense to me to that a match continues to the end. And it doesn't make sense to remove your chance to earn six points because you're ahead by too much. How many guys do you think, once they are ahead by fifteen would choose to quit if given the choice?
I don’t think that is the premise of wrestling. I think control is, and pinning may be the ultimate demonstration of control, but wrestling isn’t based on a pin. I think that’s important when asking good questions like you are.

I've always thought the goal of wrestling was simply to pin your opponent. You can be behind by 14 points and win if you pin him. And you don't even need control to score a pin. Although, I admit, I disagree with that rule. As a rule, you score points by gaining control. But the goal is to pin them.

In any event, I am more enthusiastic simply about lowerering 4 and 5 team points to margins of 5 and 10.
 
I'm gonna go with not crazy. I'm always for rewarding initiative and aggression. There would be lots of ways to revise the scoring system, and I'm not sure what's best, but encouraging action sounds great.
...

I don't have a specific reaction to the OP's suggestions right off...but I REALLY like the idea of coming up with ways to DISCOURAGE 3-2, 7 minute long "Bore Fests". I believe they will be the death of this great sport as a D1 varsity sport.

Generally speaking, I think it would be good to develop ways that the "aggressor" would not be penalized so much if they slip/trip on an attempt to initiate a takedown. I think D1 wrestling could double, or more, their collective attendance if say 5, 6 or 7 or more of the 10 matches in a dual were high scoring affairs, because of the back and forth action/drama.
 
I've always thought the goal of wrestling was simply to pin your opponent. You can be behind by 14 points and win if you pin him. And you don't even need control to score a pin. Although, I admit, I disagree with that rule. As a rule, you score points by gaining control. But the goal is to pin them.

In any event, I am more enthusiastic simply about lowerering 4 and 5 team points to margins of 5 and 10.
I sorta agree with this. Wrestlers can go down 14, 16..20 points but maybe that’s the byproduct of setting your guy up for the fall. It’s kinda like gassing a guy from bottom...:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: artradley
I'm a fan of smaller margins between bonus point categories for many of the points mentioned. If you make the differences four-point increments, one of the wrestlers is always just two points away from bettering their team's situation. You could add the superior decision back in and have a major (4+), superior (8+), and tech (12+), with the caveat that the leading wrestler could choose to continue the bout (they used to do this in freestyle, one guy would get up by 10 and they'd ask if you wanted to go for the fall to get more classification points). If you choose to continue, you can lose the tech or even lose the match, it's a risk you take. I'd like to see that at the college level.
The 4-point nearfall has some effect, however. Getting a major with just a 4 point match score difference would be much easier, seems to me. Think I’d like to see a bigger margin for a major than that.
 
The 4-point nearfall has some effect, however. Getting a major with just a 4 point match score difference would be much easier, seems to me. Think I’d like to see a bigger margin for a major than that.

A fair point. It is all inter-related, of course. If you bump a regular decision up to, say, five points, with a major worth 6, superior 7, tech 8, and fall 9, it devalues bonus points when compared to winning matches (a pin is currently worth 2 full decisions, then it would be worth 1.8) so maybe making it easier to earn a single bonus point wouldn't be so bad? You could also make TDs worth three points and spread the bonus margins out some more. That works the same and devalues escapes and riding time, an idea that also has merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artradley
The 4-point nearfall has some effect, however. Getting a major with just a 4 point match score difference would be much easier, seems to me. Think I’d like to see a bigger margin for a major than that.

A fair point. It is all inter-related, of course. If you bump a regular decision up to, say, five points, with a major worth 6, superior 7, tech 8, and fall 9, it devalues bonus points when compared to winning matches (a pin is currently worth 2 full decisions, then it would be worth 1.8) so maybe making it easier to earn a single bonus point wouldn't be so bad? You could also make TDs worth three points and spread the bonus margins out some more. That works the same and devalues escapes and riding time, an idea that also has merit.
Lot to think about there. Good stuff.
 
This was on one of the podcasts last week, and the conversation started with a reasonable premise - it doesn't feel right that a one-point win is worth as many team points as a solid five or six point win - but then wandered into silliness with suggestions that cumulative scores were kept rather than the current method. I veered way off track by suggesting that since a tech-fall would now be worth fifteen points, a fall would need to be twenty points. One could quickly see that a team could easily a meet with just two wins, and would make a fall worth 20 times (!) as much as a one point.

It did, however, make me start re-thinking majors and tech-falls. As difficult as it is to score at the higher levels, I wonder if it would be better and more exciting if a Major were a five point win rather than eight, and instead of a tech fall we awarded a "Super Major" for a margin of ten points. But rather than stopping the match once a "Super Major" had been awarded, they keep wrestling so somebody can still win by fall.

Hear me out. I've never liked tech falls, it seems wrong that with one wrestler dominating another, a scoring move could actually cause them to forfeit their chance to use the remaining time to achieve a pin. This is sort of a side issue, but if we awarded five teams points for victories over ten points, it would be pretty much required that the match not stop and tech-falls go away.

But I like the 5 and 10 margins instead of the 8 and 15 points because it would, imo, add excitement. Currently if a guy is carrying a solid 3 or 4 point margin into the last minute there is every incentive to just "sit" on the lead -- because 8 points is out of reach. We'd see more guys trying to score right up to the end, with team points on the line. It also more accurately reflects the notion than a solid five point win is a significantly better achievement than a one or two point win.

Likewise, today once a wrestler achieves the eight point margin in the third period they are also likely shut down and coast to the end -- a tech fall being out of reach. But with ten points awarding another team point, there again would be potentially more excitement and more meaningful action in the third period of a one-sided match.

Crazy?
It isn't crazy. Any conversation looking for improvement in wrestling quality is in my mind a good thing.
I do not necessarily agree with the idea though.
Scoring an 8 point victory versus a 5 point victory is a stronger show of domination. I think if you are going to earn an extra team point there should be some sense of domination.
 
End of the day, what is really wrong with the current system? It is based on a 7mijute match and avoids things getting weird.

When you add more rules or more stipulations, the more things can go wrong. Changing to the four point near fall was a great thing. However it wasn’t adding anything special. Just created an extra incentive for something that was already in place.

I think we should also keep in mind the new or casual fan. Changing things up like this could make it more confusing and the less interesting to the new fan. Dual scoring and even tournament scoring is strange enough for some people.

To me the current system has pretty good balance.

It is never crazy to think of or discuss new ideas. It is important however, to think about why there needs to be a change and what the effect has on the sport as a whole. From the well educated 40 year in the sport people all the way to somebody checking it out for the first time.
 
End of the day, what is really wrong with the current system? It is based on a 7mijute match and avoids things getting weird.

When you add more rules or more stipulations, the more things can go wrong. Changing to the four point near fall was a great thing. However it wasn’t adding anything special. Just created an extra incentive for something that was already in place.

I think we should also keep in mind the new or casual fan. Changing things up like this could make it more confusing and the less interesting to the new fan. Dual scoring and even tournament scoring is strange enough for some people.

To me the current system has pretty good balance.

It is never crazy to think of or discuss new ideas. It is important however, to think about why there needs to be a change and what the effect has on the sport as a whole. From the well educated 40 year in the sport people all the way to somebody checking it out for the first time.

I don't see this as adding rules; it's just moving the goal line for bonus points. So there's no confusion added. And eliminating tech falls seems to make it less confusing -- you don't have to explain why the match stopped.

I believe there are some things wrong with wrestling in that we have too many boring matches. This tweak, imo, would provide incentive for more aggressive wrestling and more scoring. Currently there are incentives for passive wrestling; so no matter how much you ask officials to identify and call stalling, you're kind of fighting an uphill battle.

If the rules reward aggressive wrestling, that's what we'll get.

A great recent rule change was allowing back points and falls when the bottom man's shoulders are OB. There was really no excuse for the old rule, and this was a good adjustment which again made the rules less confusing, not more confusing.
 
I believe there are some things wrong with wrestling in that we have too many boring matches. This tweak, imo, would provide incentive for more aggressive wrestling and more scoring. Currently there are incentives for passive wrestling; so no matter how much you ask officials to identify and call stalling, you're kind of fighting an uphill battle.

If the rules reward aggressive wrestling, that's what we'll get.
Can you name a couple rules that favor passive wrestling? My suggestion for increasing aggressiveness is that they only hand out a riding time point if the person getting the point has scored a minimum of 6 points in the match and/or two offensive moves (TD, reversal, backs). That would effectively eliminate defensive wrestling from the top position in order to get that point and promote dominating your opponent. That eliminates guys stalling in the late 3rd because it's 3-3 and they have the riding point coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gobblin
Can you name a couple rules that favor passive wrestling? My suggestion is that they only hand out a riding time point if the person getting the point has scored a minimum of 6 points in the match and/or two offensive moves (TD, reversal, backs). That would effectively eliminate defensive wrestling from the top position in order to get that point.
Or eliminate RT completely. Why make it complicated? Giving points for latching into your opponent promotes stalling from the top position and is not entertaining.
 
The problem I have with 3 point TD's is that it does not necessarily promote folkstyle long term. A great neutral wrestler can gain a significant advantage while being lousy on top or bottom. This is a three position sport, and I'm concerned some of these proposals would move folk too close to free and diminish the excitement folk gives us on the mat.
 
Or eliminate RT completely. Why make it complicated? Giving points for latching into your opponent promotes stalling from the top position and is not entertaining.
I agree with the complicated comment. Rules should be easy to follow for the average fan. No one on this forum is an average fan imo. Let me ask this question. What do matches look like to you if RT is eliminated? What increases? What decreases? My honest opinion is that you may substitute boring mat wrestling with boring neutral wrestling. You cannot force wrestlers to engage. The rules for stalling are there. The refs simply need to enforce it.
 
I agree with the complicated comment. Rules should be easy to follow for the average fan. No one on this forum is an average fan imo. Let me ask this question. What do matches look like to you if RT is eliminated? What increases? What decreases? My honest opinion is that you may substitute boring mat wrestling with boring neutral wrestling. You cannot force wrestlers to engage. The rules for stalling are there. The refs simply need to enforce it.
That’s a valid concern as there are always consequences, sometimes unintended. The better wrestlers will still attempt to turn and pin their opponents for more match points and more team points.
 
Or eliminate RT completely. Why make it complicated? Giving points for latching into your opponent promotes stalling from the top position and is not entertaining.

But that isn’t what riding is. Complaints about stalling are about stalling, and should be called. Riding isn’t stalling, stalling is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennstate1985
The problem I have with 3 point TD's is that it does not necessarily promote folkstyle long term. A great neutral wrestler can gain a significant advantage while being lousy on top or bottom. This is a three position sport, and I'm concerned some of these proposals would move folk too close to free and diminish the excitement folk gives us on the mat.

Bingo, emphasizing takedowns just leads to catch and release wrestling, which ignores those positions you posted about. Sure, takedowns are more exciting than boring top position with no movement, but turns and eventual pins are far more exciting than numerous takedowns.

Take Sorensen’s match in the third period. It was only exciting because we all watched the score tick up to a tech. None of the individual takedowns were especially good or exciting, the guy was broken and done. If he had been turning him the place would have exploded.
 
The thing many of you are missing about removing RT from a 1-1 match, is that it STILL most likely is 1-1 and could drag out FOREVER if you remove the RT aspect. These guys ARE NOT wrestling 1-1 matches HOPING to get RT. RT is really the one way to hopefully END these matches faster. You may not like it, but there are many situations where RT saved you from watching a 30 minute match!
 
The thing many of you are missing about removing RT from a 1-1 match, is that it STILL most likely is 1-1 and could drag out FOREVER if you remove the RT aspect. These guys ARE NOT wrestling 1-1 matches HOPING to get RT. RT is really the one way to hopefully END these matches faster. You may not like it, but there are many situations where RT saved you from watching a 30 minute match!

This too. Those that can take down at will or even believe they will definitely get one are going to regardless.
 
There have been some matches where an incredible upset has happened, and it was one of the most entertaining matches of the entire year, yet the underdog only one by one point. Seems like it was worth far more than the great wrestler majoring an unknown.
 
The thing many of you are missing about removing RT from a 1-1 match, is that it STILL most likely is 1-1 and could drag out FOREVER if you remove the RT aspect. These guys ARE NOT wrestling 1-1 matches HOPING to get RT. RT is really the one way to hopefully END these matches faster. You may not like it, but there are many situations where RT saved you from watching a 30 minute match!
imo, it doesn't extend it as you suggest. At the end of each OT, whomever has the greater riding time in OT wins if it remains 1-1.
 
imo, it doesn't extend it as you suggest. At the end of each OT, whomever has the greater riding time in OT wins if it remains 1-1.

I was speaking as if RT is no longer a factor, period. If you want to keep it as a factor in OT, I don't see why you don't just keep it in regulation as well. That way you shorten the match by 10 mins, since the same guy that rode the other for a minute more is most likely the one that wins it again in TB2
 
I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but why aren't the mats a couple feed wider? That 'step out onto the basketball court' thing seems like it could be eliminated pretty easily
 
There have been some matches where an incredible upset has happened, and it was one of the most entertaining matches of the entire year, yet the underdog only one by one point. Seems like it was worth far more than the great wrestler majoring an unknown.

If it's a big upset, it is worth more than a great wrestler majoring an unknown. It's effectively a 6 or 7 point turnaround.
 
Bingo, emphasizing takedowns just leads to catch and release wrestling, which ignores those positions you posted about. Sure, takedowns are more exciting than boring top position with no movement, but turns and eventual pins are far more exciting than numerous takedowns.

Take Sorensen’s match in the third period. It was only exciting because we all watched the score tick up to a tech. None of the individual takedowns were especially good or exciting, the guy was broken and done. If he had been turning him the place would have exploded.

I agree. I'm okay with the 2-pt Takedown. 3 points turns it into a takedown battle. That's why I always have advocated a one-point exposure for any time the top wrestler turns his opponent for a one-count. Turning guys is very hard, and these days pretty rare. Didn't we dominate a team earlier this season without scoring a single back point? I'd eliminate the concept of being pinned when you're on top (so guys aren't afraid to do a tilt for fear of "pinning themselves") and add a one-point NF.
 
Can you name a couple rules that favor passive wrestling? My suggestion for increasing aggressiveness is that they only hand out a riding time point if the person getting the point has scored a minimum of 6 points in the match and/or two offensive moves (TD, reversal, backs). That would effectively eliminate defensive wrestling from the top position in order to get that point and promote dominating your opponent. That eliminates guys stalling in the late 3rd because it's 3-3 and they have the riding point coming.

Agree with most of your points. As far as rules that favor passive wrestling, I'd start with the large gap between decision and Major, and between Major and Tech. As I said earlier, if a wrestlers gets a 2 or 3 point lead in the 3rd period there is little hope of scoring a Major, so they have incentive to sit on the lead. If five points were a Major, they would have incentive to try to score more points.

I also believe riding parallel with a leg in should be stalling. They're parallel for cripes sake. The rule allowing parallel riding because a leg is in gives incentive to kids to learn to ride legs so they can clamp on and rack up riding time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT