Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryDayz
One thing I've always been concerned about is riding time. I've never seen a more blatant "stalling" in my life that's not called exactly what it is, stalling.
I'd also contend that "control" needs to be looked at. Lower the bar for what is "control" (or loss thereof), and you'll see the match change a lot. Holding on to a guy's ankle as he drags you across the mat is hardly "control", and it's only "control" because of how they call it. Change that call, and you'll see not only a point awarded, but two wrestlers getting back at it pretty quickly...
I'm less concerned about what's being called or adjudicated as a take-down, but it's a kissing cousin to the disadvantaged wrestler having broken control. I'd take a closer look at that if they're ttying to break the current trend of people calling the sport stale or boring (and getting it booted from the Olympics.
And last..... If I were king for a day, I'd have NO problem awarding a point to the wrestler who had his feet in contact with the starting line "the most" or the wrestler who was in the inner-circle the most. Whatever it takes to award the wrestler who doesn't spend too much time fleeing! I know it's far-fetched, but they've gotta do something!
|
Riding time is a skill that should be awarded. I agree that with some it's a stall tactic, but if you can't get out from underneath, you don't deserve to win. End of argument. If you get rode like a mule you lose!
Why do you think 90% of wrestlers choose down??