Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A pushout can be the last point scored. The reason DT still had the advantage was because he scored a 2 and JB didn't.Question: A passivity point can be considered “the last score”, but a pushout isnt??
But if comparing to freestyle it would be the team that scores last, right? It has never made sense to me that FS rewards/favors the last scorer. Especially since the passivity concept is designed to generate action early and often. Seems backwards. Why penalize the wrestler who was active and scored first by assigning greater value to the same point(s) scored by a less active opponent later? If the rule were that the first scorer wins on criteria, wouldn’t that incentivize every wrestler to score first and ensure greater action out of the gate as well as continued action by the non-first scorer throughout?Yea football and baseball should try it, I'm sure the 7th game of the world series being decided by who scored first would be totally cool in the United States of America.
I get what you're saying, though to be very literal: the Non-Score Indicator is not nearly as stupid as its predecessor."THE SCORE IS NEVER TIED!".....
"(just don't look at the scoreboard)...."
"(except at the bout beginning--it IS actually tied then)"
Criteria Proponents would be sooo much better served if they stipulated that the Non-Score Indicator of Bout Leader was the dumbest thing anybody in sports competitions ever came up with.
THEN, we could focus on the meat of its intent and its alleged effect: that is produces more action.
Or, at least have more fun debates about which specific wrestling moves should warrant that coveted Bout Leader Indicator.
Or, even more fun: debates about WHEN certain wrestling activities should earn it or when it should be applied to the scoreboard.
Telling people to ignore their eyes, or to squint more tightly to see beyond the score? Same as trying to sell us this:
But if comparing to freestyle it would be the team that scores last, right? It has never made sense to me that FS rewards/favors the last scorer. Especially since the passivity concept is designed to generate action early and often. Seems backwards. Why penalize the wrestler who was active and scored first by assigning greater value to the same point(s) scored by a less active opponent later? If the rule were that the first scorer wins on criteria, wouldn’t that incentivize every wrestler to score first and ensure greater action out of the gate as well as continued action by the non-first scorer throughout?
^^ This.the reason it's the last point scorer is because that can change throughout the match. if it's first point scorer then the tie breaker is locked in from that point and the non-first point scorer needs to score more points to win because they lose if it's a tie. essentially you're making the first score worth an extra point. making it first point scorer would only incentivize action until the first point is scored whereas last point scorer maintains the emphasis throughout the match.
the reason it's the last point scorer is because that can change throughout the match. if it's first point scorer then the tie breaker is locked in from that point and the non-first point scorer needs to score more points to win because they lose if it's a tie. essentially you're making the first score worth an extra point. making it first point scorer would only incentivize action until the first point is scored whereas last point scorer maintains the emphasis throughout the match.
That is not actually true since last point scored is 3rd in line for criteria. Note that JB scored the last 4 points against DT and still lost on criteria.
the reason it's the last point scorer is because that can change throughout the match. if it's first point scorer then the tie breaker is locked in from that point and the non-first point scorer needs to score more points to win because they lose if it's a tie. essentially you're making the first score worth an extra point. making it first point scorer would only incentivize action until the first point is scored whereas last point scorer maintains the emphasis throughout the match.
Good insights. Still struggle with the fact that the current system seems designed to reward a wrestler for doing something 2nd, which just seems odd.^^ This.
Also, it's not the last score. It's the last best score. So the ever-present incentive is to score bigger moves rather than pushouts.
Good insights. Still struggle with the fact that the current system seems designed to reward a wrestler for doing something 2nd, which just seems odd.
Final Score = 4 to 4
Wrestler 1: "I hit you with a 4 point throw."
Wrestler 2: "I hit you with a 4 point throw too."
Wrestler 1: "I did it first."
Wrestler 2: "But I did it 2nd, so, yeah, I win."
that is a correct statement!Whatever the rules, as long as they are applied consistently, it is fine by me. The athletes know what they need to do to win. The bigger problem, IMO, are points that are more subjective (like the correct throw).
"THE SCORE IS NEVER TIED!".....
"(just don't look at the scoreboard)...."
"(except at the bout beginning--it IS actually tied then)"
Criteria Proponents would be sooo much better served if they stipulated that the Non-Score Indicator of Bout Leader was the dumbest thing anybody in sports competitions ever came up with.
THEN, we could focus on the meat of its intent and its alleged effect: that is produces more action.
Or, at least have more fun debates about which specific wrestling moves should warrant that coveted Bout Leader Indicator.
Or, even more fun: debates about WHEN certain wrestling activities should earn it or when it should be applied to the scoreboard.
Telling people to ignore their eyes, or to squint more tightly to see beyond the score? Same as trying to sell us this:
That video of Hall and Valencia is amazing. Hadn't seen that in forever.I'm with JP--if they just added a point at the end of every match for those who have criterea, I'd have no real beef with it. I think it generally forces more interesting bouts to have criteria. No one ever wants to watch a Fix vs. Suriano type of match. And those kind of OT experiences are probably the most common overall.
That said, making folkstyle use criterea instead of OT would have eliminated some of my favorite wrestling ever. Sometimes, OT wrestling it just nails.
As the kind of fan I am, I honestly am not sure I'm into the trade-off. I'd rather have memories of show-stopping OT bouts than worry about what the average HS or DII match looks like. But that may not be the healthiest choice for the sport overall.
I honestly feel the same way about the idea of the step out in folk. It would probably raise the overall quality of matches, but this ending w/ 1 pt for Mark in the very first exchange just seems outrageous to me.
If I score 4 first, there is a natural tendency to squat on that lead. If you score the same 4 while I am not engaging, yours is the better move......at least how I see it.Good insights. Still struggle with the fact that the current system seems designed to reward a wrestler for doing something 2nd, which just seems odd.
Final Score = 4 to 4
Wrestler 1: "I hit you with a 4 point throw."
Wrestler 2: "I hit you with a 4 point throw too."
Wrestler 1: "I did it first."
Wrestler 2: "But I did it 2nd, so, yeah, I win."
I've also become a big Freestyle fan--but you describe the one thing that always bugs me most about the artifical scoring rules. If it's worth 4 points, it should be damn clear which competitor is scoring them. I don't see an easy fix for that situation, without a departure from what has made mostly good improvements. To me, what it shows is that "control" is the primal origin of the sport, and the rulesets are just there to de-emphasize it in favor of more frequent scoring.I too have come to like criteria.
But I have a different issue. When wrestler A gets in on a standing high single leg and drives forward and wrestler B goes to his (her) back and they roll through with both exposing their backs, one of the two gets 4 points. That means an 8-point swing in the scoring rides on the call by the officials as to which wrestler earned the points. It seems like there is not much consistency to the calls that are made. There ought to be a better way.