ADVERTISEMENT

Three Point Reversals

P

PSUWrestling2425

Team MVP
Mar 12, 2018
195
559
93
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cali_Nittany, HawkAlum2002, SansAgain and 6 others
PSUWrestling2425 said:
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Pretty good idea. I also liked what david taylor said in all star meet. Adjust majors to 10 pt diff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spoons and Psalm 1 guy
PSUWrestling2425 said:
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I agree completely with you. I also think that a major should be a 10 point or more win with the 3 point takedown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nashville_Hawkeye, Spoons, so cal hawkfan and 2 others
PSUWrestling2425 said:
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I understand your way of thought, but it defeats the point of increasing near fall to 4 points and takedowns to 3. If we increase the defensive points, then the offensive points will mean less. So, to make your argument work we can go back to near falls 3 points and takedowns to 2 points. I like the new 3-point takedown rule, makes teams like Penn State have to work instead of just getting a 1-point lead and actively stalling out the match. Makes the first takedown important. If you're being aggressive to get back points, sometimes you can get caught and reversed. So just sitting on bottom waiting for the opponent to make a mistake won't work. IMO
 
Sharky1203 said:
I understand your way of thought, but it defeats the point of increasing near fall to 4 points and takedowns to 3. If we increase the defensive points, then the offensive points will mean less. So, to make your argument work we can go back to near falls 3 points and takedowns to 2 points. I like the new 3-point takedown rule, makes teams like Penn State have to work instead of just getting a 1-point lead and actively stalling out the match. Makes the first takedown important. If you're being aggressive to get back points, sometimes you can get caught and reversed. So just sitting on bottom waiting for the opponent to make a mistake won't work. IMO
Click to expand...
An aggressive risky attempt at a reversal is an offensive move. Taylor was good at reversal’s, but Ben Askren was very dangerous on bottom also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ILHawksFan and MSU158
Sharky1203 said:
I understand your way of thought, but it defeats the point of increasing near fall to 4 points and takedowns to 3. If we increase the defensive points, then the offensive points will mean less. So, to make your argument work we can go back to near falls 3 points and takedowns to 2 points. I like the new 3-point takedown rule, makes teams like Penn State have to work instead of just getting a 1-point lead and actively stalling out the match. Makes the first takedown important. If you're being aggressive to get back points, sometimes you can get caught and reversed. So just sitting on bottom waiting for the opponent to make a mistake won't work. IMO
Click to expand...
Thinking about folk as being about control, a reversal is a change from one wrestler being in control to the other being in control. Isn’t that fundamentally a bigger change than one gaining control from neutral (a TD)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nashville_Hawkeye, Spoons, Psalm 1 guy and 1 other person
Libertylover said:
An aggressive risky attempt at a reversal is an offensive move. Taylor was good at reversal’s, but Ben Askren was very dangerous on bottom also.
Click to expand...
If you are not the person in control, then that is defense. Just like in football, trying to strip the ball or interceptions, some are better than others at it.
 
PSUWrestling2425 said:
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Agree completely. If anything a reversal is more challenging to get than a takedown. The scoring wrestler overcomes the other guy's advantage position instead of one guy scoring from a neutral position. Reversals three and one point step out already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spoons, el dub, blcoach80 and 1 other person
PSU Mike said:
Thinking about folk as being about control, a reversal is a change from one wrestler being in control to the other being in control. Isn’t that fundamentally a bigger change than one gaining control from neutral (a TD)?
Click to expand...
Yes, but doesn't change my mind about the points. The new point changes were put into place to pick up the pace and stop people from sitting on leads for 5 mins (for example). Before a takedown then escape 2-1. Take the down position, escape 2-2. Ride the guy for a while, release him 3-2 and he's worn down and get a takedown win 4-3. I saw this happen so many times. Makes aggressive wrestling from beginning to end.
 
Sharky1203 said:
If you are not the person in control, then that is defense. Just like in football, trying to strip the ball or interceptions, some are better than others at it.
Click to expand...
On a reversal move, you are going after the guy to take him down, you’re just starting in referees position instead of on your feet. Still and offensive move.
 
PSUWrestling2425 said:
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Terrible idea
 
PSUWrestling2425 said:
So, after giving the 3 point takedown some time, I'm ok with it, IF one change is made. A reversal needs to also be worth 3 points. Having both at 3 points successfully de-values the escape, which I am fine with.

First, the ratio of escapes to reversals is crazy. It isn't easy to get a reversal. Also, at the high D1 level, most reversals end up being similar to takedowns. The top wrestler realizes he's in danger and tries to bail to give up the escape, and the bottom wrestler ends up in a position where he is finishing a takedown. David Taylor was the best I remember at securing reversals over escapes. The reward for reversals should be equal to that of takedowns.

Currently, I don't like that a guy gets a takedown and leads 3-0, gives up a reversal to make it 3-2, then gets an escape to lead 4-2. The score does not justify the action. It should be 4-3.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Agreed. A takedown is one wrestler gaining control from a neutral position. A reversal is one wrestler gaining control from a “negative” position (under other guy’s control). Not only should the latter be at least valued equally, since the “escape” aspect of a reversal is ignored during the move, a strong argument exists that it should be worth more. That ain't happening, but setting them back to equal value should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artradley, Sett1997, el dub and 3 others
Libertylover said:
On a reversal move, you are going after the guy to take him down, you’re just starting in referees position instead of on your feet. Still and offensive move.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing that it's not hard to reverse someone. But being in the bottom position is defense. The other person is in control, and you are trying to get away from that control before he scores. That is while they have riding time. You are awarded points for escaping that control. Just like in football, you are awarded the opportunity to get the ball if you stop them in 4 downs. Stopping the person/team in control is by definition "defense". In our sport we get awarded points for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el dub
I say an intentional release is not rewarded with a point. If you get a takedown and go out of bounds, when you come back to middle you can choose to be on the feet with no point awarded.
 
HikeNatParks said:
Agreed. A takedown is one wrestler gaining control from a neutral position. A reversal is one wrestler gaining control from a “negative” position (under other guy’s control). Not only should the latter be at least valued equally, since the “escape” aspect of a reversal is ignored during the move, a strong argument exists that it should be worth more. That ain't happening, but setting them back to equal value should.
Click to expand...
Exactly, since it’s a harder takedown than from neutral, it should be 4 points. Might make some guys practice those type of moves again. Instead of just simple escape.
 
Libertylover said:
Exactly, since it’s a harder takedown than from neutral, it should be 4 points. Might make some guys practice those type of moves again. Instead of just simple escape.
Click to expand...
Sorry I just disagree. Example, someone has two take downs and an escape and controlled the entire match gets caught with 12 seconds to go gets reversed and back points, now loses the match. We can't up the points for everything. It would be so watered down that it would be like the scoring in 1992. Takedowns and near fall points make more action. Sitting on bottom, without riding time, waiting for the other person to make a mistake would just be boring.
 
The conundrum is there’s less incentive for a reversal than just getting an escape (assuming there are no back points following the reversal). In most scenarios the point differential is negligible: bottom wrestler gets a two-point reversal and then gives up an escape, versus the bottom man getting an escape without a reversal…both scenarios equal a differential of one point for the bottom wrestler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nashville_Hawkeye, blcoach80 and el dub
AFHawk86 said:
The conundrum is there’s less incentive for a reversal than just getting an escape (assuming there are no back points following the reversal). In most scenarios the point differential is negligible: bottom wrestler gets a two-point reversal and then gives up an escape, versus the bottom man getting an escape without a reversal…both scenarios equal a differential of one point for the bottom wrestler.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And there’s a lot more incentive to fight for reversal if it could change outcome of match.
 
The problem I have with a 2 point reversal (always have had) is if you get a reversal, then give up the escape, you net +1 point. If you get just escape you net +1 point. Without back points there is no benefit from a reversal. Same problem that two point takedowns had
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharky1203 and AFHawk86
Rule makers have always ignored the ‘escape’ imbedded in every reversal. Now, they say gaining control from neutral (a TD) is worth more than gaining it from a negative position (under other guy’s control)? It’s illogical. At minimum, reversal value should equal TD, but I go further. Given the negative starting point, I see it as a half-point ‘higher’ move. I offer this scenario, A wrestling B:
Period 1, A takes down B. Mid-period, B reverses A.
Period 2, A rides B the entire period.
Period 3, B rides A the entire period, negating riding time.
Under old rules, this goes to overtime, tied at 2.
Under new rules, A wins 3-2.
Under correct rules (mine, ha), B wins 3.5-3.0 because the control he gained came from a negative starting point, not the easier neutral one. In other words, the reversal’s imbedded escape has value.
I’m convinced the wrestling gods are with me. The NCAA, not so much. These threads? Who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AFHawk86
HikeNatParks said:
Rule makers have always ignored the ‘escape’ imbedded in every reversal. Now, they say gaining control from neutral (a TD) is worth more than gaining it from a negative position (under other guy’s control)? It’s illogical. At minimum, reversal value should equal TD, but I go further. Given the negative starting point, I see it as a half-point ‘higher’ move. I offer this scenario, A wrestling B:
Period 1, A takes down B. Mid-period, B reverses A.
Period 2, A rides B the entire period.
Period 3, B rides A the entire period, negating riding time.
Under old rules, this goes to overtime, tied at 2.
Under new rules, A wins 3-2.
Under correct rules (mine, ha), B wins 3.5-3.0 because the control he gained came from a negative starting point, not the easier neutral one. In other words, the reversal’s imbedded escape has value.
I’m convinced the wrestling gods are with me. The NCAA, not so much. These threads? Who knows.
Click to expand...
Being in a negative position as you put it should be minimally rewarded imo
 
HikeNatParks said:
Rule makers have always ignored the ‘escape’ imbedded in every reversal. Now, they say gaining control from neutral (a TD) is worth more than gaining it from a negative position (under other guy’s control)? It’s illogical. At minimum, reversal value should equal TD, but I go further. Given the negative starting point, I see it as a half-point ‘higher’ move. I offer this scenario, A wrestling B:
Period 1, A takes down B. Mid-period, B reverses A.
Period 2, A rides B the entire period.
Period 3, B rides A the entire period, negating riding time.
Under old rules, this goes to overtime, tied at 2.
Under new rules, A wins 3-2.
Under correct rules (mine, ha), B wins 3.5-3.0 because the control he gained came from a negative starting point, not the easier neutral one. In other words, the reversal’s imbedded escape has value.
I’m convinced the wrestling gods are with me. The NCAA, not so much. These threads? Who knows.
Click to expand...
The wrestler in the negative position got there because his opponent was better from neutral. Why would we want to reward that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrod65
A reversal deserves the same points as a takedown, period. I don’t think you can deep dive into this discussion without putting common sense aside and tell me why it doesn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blcoach80
so cal hawkfan said:
I agree with it being worth the same, thus PSU Hiker thinks that it should be worth more than a take down which is essentially communism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that makes little sense to me. I can kinda understand the thinking, but a takedown is what wrestling is all about and should be the ceiling in scoring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: so cal hawkfan
HikeNatParks said:
Rule makers have always ignored the ‘escape’ imbedded in every reversal. Now, they say gaining control from neutral (a TD) is worth more than gaining it from a negative position (under other guy’s control)? It’s illogical. At minimum, reversal value should equal TD, but I go further. Given the negative starting point, I see it as a half-point ‘higher’ move. I offer this scenario, A wrestling B:
Period 1, A takes down B. Mid-period, B reverses A.
Period 2, A rides B the entire period.
Period 3, B rides A the entire period, negating riding time.
Under old rules, this goes to overtime, tied at 2.
Under new rules, A wins 3-2.
Under correct rules (mine, ha), B wins 3.5-3.0 because the control he gained came from a negative starting point, not the easier neutral one. In other words, the reversal’s imbedded escape has value.
I’m convinced the wrestling gods are with me. The NCAA, not so much. These threads? Who knows.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine, a wrestling match starts and a guy purposefully just gives up a takedown, so he can instead work immediately work for a reversal which is worth more than the takedown he just gave up?

Then once that strategy catches on, eventually you have matches where both guys just try to flop at the whistle to be the one who gives up the takedown. Eventually you get into an extreme scramble situation where neither guy wants to gain control first so they just keep rolling
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNTwrestle and SansAgain
sstark46 said:
Can you imagine, a wrestling match starts and a guy purposefully just gives up a takedown, so he can instead work immediately work for a reversal which is worth more than the takedown he just gave up?

Then once that strategy catches on, eventually you have matches where both guys just try to flop at the whistle to be the one who gives up the takedown. Eventually you get into an extreme scramble situation where neither guy wants to gain control first so they just keep rolling
Click to expand...
Spencer Lee had a 4-2-4-4 cure for that potential problem.
 
sstark46 said:
Can you imagine, a wrestling match starts and a guy purposefully just gives up a takedown, so he can instead work immediately work for a reversal which is worth more than the takedown he just gave up?

Then once that strategy catches on, eventually you have matches where both guys just try to flop at the whistle to be the one who gives up the takedown. Eventually you get into an extreme scramble situation where neither guy wants to gain control first so they just keep rolling
Click to expand...
That strategy sucks against all the good riders and guys who can easily turn or pin you like Spencer or Real.
 
AFHawk86 said:
The conundrum is there’s less incentive for a reversal than just getting an escape (assuming there are no back points following the reversal). In most scenarios the point differential is negligible: bottom wrestler gets a two-point reversal and then gives up an escape, versus the bottom man getting an escape without a reversal…both scenarios equal a differential of one point for the bottom wrestler.
Click to expand...

This ignores the fact that riding time exists and is a factor in the outcome of many matches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IRONBIRD

OSU Beavers grades

Replies
23
Views
6K
Iowa Wrestling
vhsalum
V
seminole97

capitalism FTW: Cruise Ship Offers Democrats Multi-Year "Escape From Reality" Package After Trump Victory

Replies
0
Views
64
Off Topic
seminole97
seminole97
S

Stanford Predictions/Thoughts

Replies
66
Views
12K
Iowa Wrestling
GableBeer
G
J

Does Iowa win last Saturday with Cade playing the entire game?

Replies
54
Views
2K
Iowa Football
sober_teacher
S
RossWB

Iowa vs Northwestern Game Week Thread

Replies
8
Views
660
The Press Box
RossWB
RossWB
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back