OT vs criteria debate
- Thread starter dunkej01
- Start date
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.
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?
"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:
"(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:
This debate is silly and feels a little bit like sour grapes from folks who wanted DT to lose. DT wrestles the last 15 seconds differently if he knows 4-4 will send it to an overtime. DT built up a lead and knew exactly what he could give up at the end and still win.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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:
May we never re-live the Ball Grab and starting OT in the standing single-leg position.
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.
^^ 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.
It was my understanding that the criteria was put into place to speed up match length for events at the request of the Olympic committee. Also the reason for fewer weight classes right?
I hate the fewer weight classes, because there are guys that are naturally between weights.
I have no issue with criteria though. For the wrestling fans that are hating that the scores look the same, you obviously never had to explain the riding time point to anyone before.
Outside of the times the US did not understand who held criteria when it first began, I like the action it creates. I love some of the OT matches in the past few years, but far too many were decided by a few extra seconds of riding imo. Too many being any at all.
I hate the fewer weight classes, because there are guys that are naturally between weights.
I have no issue with criteria though. For the wrestling fans that are hating that the scores look the same, you obviously never had to explain the riding time point to anyone before.
Outside of the times the US did not understand who held criteria when it first began, I like the action it creates. I love some of the OT matches in the past few years, but far too many were decided by a few extra seconds of riding imo. Too many being any at all.
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.
right. i was speaking to the first vs last debate. i like that bigger move is first criteria and fewer cautions is second followed by last point.
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."
Absolutely hated it when it came out, but absolutely love criteria now. Give the extra point at the end of the match to lower confusion, all for that. Could be convinced last score no matter what to be less confusing but with the line under the person on the scoreboard that has been mitigated somewhere.
It creates a much more exciting product in the second period. Often with a tie match both people will do nothing the final minute, then do nothing in OT, etc. When someone is always losing, scoring an action is increased.
I'll be a collegiate folkstyle fan first and foremost, but there is no doubt in my mind that freestyle with their current ruleset is simply a more enjoyable product to watch.
It creates a much more exciting product in the second period. Often with a tie match both people will do nothing the final minute, then do nothing in OT, etc. When someone is always losing, scoring an action is increased.
I'll be a collegiate folkstyle fan first and foremost, but there is no doubt in my mind that freestyle with their current ruleset is simply a more enjoyable product to watch.
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).
i think of it more as a punishment for not stopping the other guy from doing what he wants to do. like in your scenario, if it's getting late in the match, wrestler 1 knows the only way he can lose is if he gives up a 4 point throw so he should be doing everything he can to stop that from happening. if he can't stop it then oh well, he doesn't deserve to win.
I remember the fiasco that was freestyle scoring not-that-many-years-ago.
-- Best-of-three two-minute periods
-- Leg clinch after a scoreless period, with the ball draw determining position
-- 1st criteria for a tied period, with scoring, was number of cautions
-- and plenty more, feel free to jump in and list others
Current rules are infinitely better, and the sense of urgency (for a non 0-0 score) will always be there when the score is tied late in matches for the wrestler losing by criteria. Creates action, which is what it should do, and it's easier to understand for fans, which was a huge complaint with the old scoring.
Anecdotally, far more of my wrestling friends enjoy freestyle than ever before, and not much of the discussion we have is around scoring.
-- Best-of-three two-minute periods
-- Leg clinch after a scoreless period, with the ball draw determining position
-- 1st criteria for a tied period, with scoring, was number of cautions
-- and plenty more, feel free to jump in and list others
Current rules are infinitely better, and the sense of urgency (for a non 0-0 score) will always be there when the score is tied late in matches for the wrestler losing by criteria. Creates action, which is what it should do, and it's easier to understand for fans, which was a huge complaint with the old scoring.
Anecdotally, far more of my wrestling friends enjoy freestyle than ever before, and not much of the discussion we have is around scoring.
"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 looks delicious 😋
Few weight classes sucks. Hurts the USA badly right now but the past would look different too. Imagine if there was only six weight classes in the late 80's and early 90's then the (arguably) US wrestling goat, John Smith, is a tweener. Does he go up or down and is he nearly as successful? At least the worlds has the ten class I guess but would still like ten.
Rumors are 2028 Greco is gone.
Rumors are 2028 Greco is gone.
That video of Hall and Valencia is amazing. Hadn't seen that in forever.
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.
When the score is tied, it can’t be difficult to show who is leading. Of course, most non-US countries would assume the fan would know these things.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
FB Recruiting Penn State WR target Matthew Outten releases top six
- Latest: Crusher1950
-
