Do you think highschool wresling should have rideing time like college wrestling.

Used to; was discontinued in the late 60's.

The move of folk style wrestling to more of an international style with the emphasis on takedowns and quick pins and with the accompanying emphasis on eliminating stalling makes the concept of riding time obsolete. If not obsolete, incompatible with the current movement in high school folkstyle.

If Egg's explanation is accurate, why is riding time still such an integral and accepted part of collegiate wrestling?

Maninly becuase most college wrestlers are so evenly matched that there needs to be a way, one wrestler can claim a win over another without an overtime period which still happens on occasion. But it seems more fair to award a victory to a wrestler that can control another for 1 minute as opposed to 1 wrestler getting a "lucky" takedown or 1 decided by a referee.

I would like to see riding time put back in. It won't be, but you don't see many kids riding someone out any more. The skill of controlling someone the whole match it a lost art. People want to see action so they went to a takedown clinic. What you see in the NCAA National Finals is a takedown contest because they are so good they can't hold each other. But watch the rounds before that and you see legs and riding all the time.

I disagree. Leave riding time to the colleges. It's what separates high school wrestling and college. I agree with Nigel...the college wrestlers are so even they need it. In high school it may simply encourage stalling.

I think riding time should be a part of high school wrestling so that high school wrestlers could become more prepared to wrestle the way they do in college

Takedown wins the match. Ride all you want but if you can't take them down you'll lose.

Kaleb is correct, takedowsn do win the match.

Encourage stalling??? THAT would be sweet.

I would rule the world.

I respectfully disagree with the statement that takedowns win matches. Sometimes, yes - but not always.

I've known a number of wrestlers over the years who were average or above average on their feet, but still won a lot of matches.

I watched Bryan Miller all year long - albeit in the college ranks - this season. He was taken down a number of times, but his prowess from the top nearly always allowed him to overcome the loss of an early takedown. Riding time played a role in this.

On one particular occassion - vs. Kevin Artis of Neosho (both were 2x NJCAA All-Americans) - he was taken down several times in the match but quickly scored escapes. When he finally got his choice in the third period, he took top and rode Artis the whole period. Scored near falls and picked up a point for riding time. He won the match, despite giving up the takedowns because of his ability to ride and score from the top position.

Hoxie, as a team, is solid on their feet, but not invincible from the neutral position by any means. But their cross face series and cradle series have been pretty imposing for a lot of talented feet wrestlers and would have aided the accumulation of riding time this season.

On and on and on and ...................

Riding time could be an impartail measure to decide the outcome between two evenly matched opponents prior to entering overtime.

I also respectfully disagree with the statement that riding time would encourage stalling.

Riding time can be accumulated without stalling (although the fans of the wrestler on bottom would never admit to it!). And if a wrestler is stalling from the top position, it would be the official's job to negate the effect of riding time through use of stalling warnings/calls.

Quite to the contrary, I feel the current overtime scenario is the biggest cause of stalling in wrestling today - especially in the upper weights.

The wrestler with the first points scored in a match now-a-days often seems content to stall his way through the third period and the first period of sudden victory knowing full and well that he will have his choice in the tie-breaker.

Riding time could be used to defense against this. Because if he does not move from the bottom position or if he was ridden for sufficient time prior to that point, riding time could decide the outcome of the match before it gets to overtime.

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I feel riding time would be good for the sport.

I agree with les. Awarding points for riding time may also make the wrestler on bottom move around more. I have seen several instances where the bottom wrestler would just "wait out the storm" and try not to get pinned late in the match, pretty much curl up in a ball. Riding can be an art form, and better prepare the wrestler for future competition.

They did away with riding time because of some pathetic need to make wrestling appeal to people who knew nothing about it in hopes of making it a mass spectator sport. The truth of it is wrestling is great to people who know wrestling and the rest won't get it if you wore singlets with lights on them. Of course the person who controls the other the most should be rewarded. This is another example of people running this sport who have backgrounds in other sports besides wrestling. The college guys have it about right. Look at the stall calls in college wrestling they don't occur for the most part on the mat they occur on their feet. The importance of a takedown has nothing to do with the awarding of a point for dominating your adversary on the mat. One does not cancel out the other.

If riding time were inacted, it would give me a reason to actually ride people instead of cutting them. I would like to see riding time inacted because it would get guys ready for college.

Therefore, boo on riding unless you get a point for it.

i don't think that riding should be for high school wrestlers, not that i don't think that riding is important but i think it will give a good high school rider something to look forward for when he does go to college, then he will have and advantage over a guy that cut there opponet everytime and never rode noone out.

I will disagree with Les,

Takedowns usually do win matches. He pointed out a few examples but for the most part it is the first takedown that means who wins. I could go on forever about why this is true but its not worth it. As for riding time, I think it certainly would encourage stalling. Unfortunatly referees would be less likely to call stalling if they thought a wrestler was trying to get riding time. Come to think if it I really don't know why I get myself involved in coversation that ultimatly have no point. I can say with just about 100% certainty that there will be no rule change invloving this anytime in the next, ohh rest of our lives.

I heard Dan Gable say he let his opponent have the first takedown so he could get the match going to wear the guy out and pin him. I don't know all the stats about first takedowns relating to wins but I do know the guy that pins his opponent wins the match.
When Gable coached at Iowa, his teams were not the slick takedown machines but they won all those national championships by being mentally tougher. Iowa, like Gable, would ride to wear the opponent down and pin him. Call it mental toughness, killer instinct or whatever but that is what makes champions at the D-1 level.
I think Hoxie is our best example of toughness in Kansas. I don't think they are the slickest on their feet but they are old school tough. In the top position, they will ride and look for a pin or back points. I don't think it's the water in Hoxie that makes them so good, it's Baker tough that makes the difference. The same was true at AC when Jackson was the coach.
If I was a young coach, I would film every Hoxie match I could and try to copy everything they do.

Harold Nichols coached the same way. He supposedly had a philosophy that if you have a good reversal and a pinning combination you could give up the first takedown and still outscore them 4 or 5 to 2. His teams spent a lot of time practicing on the mat. Maybe that's where Gable developed his thought process?

Didn't Pyle get the first takedown against Drennan down in the 2002 state semis? Maybe even a five point move to start the match? Drennan won, despite that.

First takedowns are important, but in no way guarantee a win.

No they don't guarantee a win, but I sure as heck wouldn't give any opponent of mine a takedown, I'll give them escapes all day long. The point is your not going to be able to ride any good wrestler. And example that comes to mind is Bradon Phizenmaier from Clay Center. I never saw him get rode for more than 30-40 seconds in high school he had an unstopable standup. But he was also really good on his feet, maybe that was why he won three championships. I guess everyone has their own strategy and coaching style. But as long as im coaching you won't see any of my wrestlers laying on top of another not scoring any points.

So I guess none of the wrestlers Cael Sanderson wrestled were any good?