Was anyone saying GIVE your opponent a takedown? If your opponent is better on his feet than you are, what can you do? Choose both up and get taken down? Choose bottom, fight for an escape/be cut loose so that he can take you down again?Or get a reversal/choose top and hope that you have spent some practicing pinning combinations?

Come on now CoachJT, you know as well as I do that there are always exceptions!

Hey its all in the process. I have seen many coaches and teams do it in totally opposite ideologies. I personally believed in takedowns and leg wrestling because you obviously could score on your feet, always an advantage, but when you sunk in the turk you could physically dominate the match and wear them to the bone. I worked both against and with Bob Brown and watched him ignore takedowns for years both as a wrestler (state champ and NAIA All American) and as a coach, 15 state champions by teaching hard mat wrestling and he really didn't give a darn what happened on his feet. If you don't think Ark City could ride you, you better think again. The kid Ware from Oklahoma this year was just an old fashion tight waist rider and he just rode everyone to the death. I am not sure you can say one is better than the other, it is the result that counts and I have seen greatness in both of those philosophies. There are many ways to skin the cat you know. Thats what makes it interesting. You can ride a good wrestler though,we could, and so could a lot of other people (Emporia, Manhatten, Wichita South, Beloit, etc.) There ain't no law that says a good wrestler can't be dominated on the top.

Speaking as a coach and as a fan, I would love to see riding time brought back to high school. It would put more importance on mat wrestling — both for the top and bottom wrestler. And I disagree that it would encourage more stalling.

As for the Gable philosophy, it depends. I have many tapes (and have attended many clinics) of he, J Robinson (his former assistant), Jimmy Zalesky (the man who replaced him), Tom and Terry Brands and Lincoln McElravy, among others, all espousing the same philosophy: "If you can take a man down anytime you want and get away from a man anytime you want, you win every match!"

This is a difficult subject to take sides on because there are good points on both sides. My preference would to not have riding time in highschool. This is why, and I will try to be brief. The last few years there seems to be a lot of stalling done on the top as well as on the bottom, I dont think I have seen many wrestlers that did not stall at one time or another, some were just better at it than others.I wonder if some freestyle rules would change the stall tactic a little bit. What do you think. Thanks.

eliminating riding time was a big plus for aggressive wrestling.

Seems like we always have differing opinions fanatic, but that's ok.

I am curious to hear the basis for your conclusion. Are you saying collegiate wrestling is not aggressive?

If you say its too passive, I disagree.

If you say it is adequately agressive, what would allow collegiate wrestling to maintain agression, but exclude it from the high school ranks under riding time?

I feel riding time would add another dimension to a sport that has significantly evolved since it was removed.

As I understand it, at the time riding time was in place wrestlers were discouraged, and even penalized, for take 'em down and let 'em up tatics-which would encouraged stalling for those individuals not well versed on pinning combinations. This is no longer the case.

I think the style of the sport has changed enough to allow riding time to have a successful comeback. But would be interested in hearing the basis for your point of view.

In 1964 or 1965, the first takedown of the match was 2 points and the remaining takedowns were 1 point. I don't know the reasoning for changing but I think it only lasted one year. I think it had something to do with taking your opponent down and letting them up. In those years, a win in a dual was 3 points.( no 4 or 5 point wins).
Les, you are correct, letting your opponent up to keep taking him down was considered unsportsmanlike conduct.
An old wrestling saying " You can pin people you wouldn't otherwise be able to beat". We have all seen it happen.

nigel u know how ppl disagree with u all the time maybe its cause ur not the brightest guy ever