First off, I want to acknowledge that Gardner is a tremendous athlete and I am in NO WAY questioning his skill but (and you knew something negative was coming) I am a little disappointed with the way he won a spot on the Olympic Team.
Now my disappointment may very well be due to the fact that I'm new to watching Greco-Roman wrestling, and that's why I'd like to hear from folks who are more knowledgeable than I.
In his final victory in the Olympic trails, which aired this past Saturday on USA Network, he won in virtually the same fashion he did against Karelin.
This was due to his opponent breaking his grip and losing a point.
Now clearly that is part of the rules, and I know this, but it just seems like an anti-climactic way to win a match.
From my newbie point-of-view, it appears that Gardner employs a more defense-oriented strategy, which I have a bit of trouble appreciating the complexities of since I've never competed in G-R.
So my question for you good people is this: Do you like the way Rulon Gardner competes, and if so, why?
I'd love to hear from all of you, as it will help to educate me in the sport.
I'm not exactly an expert in greco, but...
I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you to some extent. But mostly I "blame" the weight class rather than Gardner. Maybe I'm biased (former middle weight wrestler) but I've never really liked heavyweight wrestling... regardless of the style of wrestling.
Heavyweights do a lot of leaning on each other, and just making it a pushy-shovy match. The fact that Gardner does a lot of this just means he is the rule, rather than the exception in his weight class.
You'll notice that his opponent did basically the same thing, right?
Also, greco is a bit different than freestyle or folkstyle. Most scoring in greco happens down on the mat - so a lot of what you're doing is handfighting and pummeling and getting your opponent to back up to force a passivity (stall call) and get the ref to put him down on the mat so you can score there. What I'm saying is that takedowns are much more infrequent in greco than in other styles - so the wrestlers *appear* to be less active on their feet.
So you are right in that Gardner played a smart game, with solid defense, and knew how and when to score, and quite frankly, it wasn't very exciting. On the other hand, that's how heavyweight greco tends to work.
Lightweight and middleweight wrestlers tend, in my opinion, to be a lot more exciting because they usually are really going for blood - constantly attacking, attacking, attacking rather than the heavyweight focus, which is conserving energy.
Also, regarding the clinch/breaking grip thing: I TOTALLY agree, I've never liked that rule since they first introduced it (about 6 or 7 years ago?). I would love to see that stupid rule simply go away.
Now excuse me while I lock myself in a bunker in anticipation of heavyweights everywhere coming to track me down...
Great reply, Chip!
That's the kind of feedback I was looking for!
"You'll notice that his opponent did basically the same thing, right?"
Yes I did, but he (Rulon's opponent whose name escapes me) did seem to try and "expolde" on at least two occasions and force the action (although he wasn't very successful at accomplishing anything with those short bursts of energy).
"On the other hand, that's how heavyweight greco tends to work."
Yeah, I kind of thought so.
After seeing Randy Couture in the UFC executing those TREMENDOUS explosive takedowns from the clinch, I guess I was expecting a bit more action from the defending Olympic champion in the actual sport of greco.
I still give Rulon major props for coming back from the surgurey and doing as well as he did.
"I would love to see that stupid rule simply go away."
That would be nice.
Perhaps then the elite heavys would be forced to be a bit more offensive?
Thanks again for the comprehensive reply!
I really appreciate it :)
I'd love to hear from anyone else with an opinion.
Do you tend to agree with Chip's assesment?
I think he pretty well summed things up, but perhaps there's more to it?
I saw the final match, but don't recall the two occasions you're talking about. So I'm not sure I can speak to what was happening there.
You raise an interesting point regarding Couture, but keep in mind two things...
1. Couture was (I'm pretty sure) a "light heavy" (220 lbs.) when competing in greco, and I think he wrestled at 190 when in college (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that). He never wrestled in the "super heavy" class - 286 lbs. (which is what Gardner v. Byers was). So he was in a slightly lighter, and slightly more "active" weightclass.
2. It's probably a little easier for Randy to appear very explosive in his clinch work against opponents with widely varying degrees of wrestling experience. Against someone with similar wrestling credentials, however, I'm willing to bet Couture looks a bit less explosive.
Obviously, I'm not saying he actually *is* less explosive against a fellow wrestler, just that he would *appear* to be less explosive against someone that has the same or similar "tool kit" that he does.
Kind of along the lines of putting a good boxer against someone with limited boxing skills - he's going to look like he's got the slickest hands in the world (to the casual observer, anyway). Put him up against a boxer of similar experience, however, and he will somehow not look quite as polished.
By the way, yes, Gardner is the man for working through some SERIOUS injuries very very recently and STILL winning. Pretty nuts.
Good thread, btw. :)
"I saw the final match, but don't recall the two occasions you're talking about. So I'm not sure I can speak to what was happening there."
I probably made it seem FAR more dramatic than it actually was, but I was making reference to the two spots where Byers (thanks for telling me his name) attempted to quickly pummel first and then grab Gardner's arm.
Rulon smoothly just spun away (to the opposite side of the pummel/grab) from both attempts, if I remember correctly (which I may not).
"Obviously, I'm not saying he actually *is* less explosive against a fellow wrestler, just that he would *appear* to be less explosive against someone that has the same or similar "tool kit" that he does. "
That makes so much sense, it's not funny!
I guess I thought that WHEN a takedown happens, that it would still look explosive because that meant that the "throwee" was caught off-guard.
Still and all, comparing the multi-faceted skills an MMA fighter brings to the table to the specific skill set a sport like greco requires really IS like comparing apples to oranges.
Couture wrestling at the lighter weight also makes sense to me as far as why HE might have been a bit more active.
I'll go back and watch the match again with "new eyes" after reading your exceptional points and I'll probably have a better appreciation for it, as well as an better appreciation of just why it is Gardner is considered THE man in the super heavies.
The thing that bothered me was how USA hyped his final match to be "the big one" so people that were new to the sport thought that was the peak of excitment, which to me would kind of be a turnoff to greco-roman. It would have made more sense to have yped Cael Sanderson because he is the most recognizable wrestler in my opinion
-Nick
Nick: that's also why I was disappointed!
It was the same hype when Gardner beat Karelin.
I rushed home to see the Russian giant get defeated, not by a brilliant performance from US representative, but rather he "lost" by what looked like a momentary lack of reason that cost Karelin the gold.
Rulon seemed to do literally nothing offensive against Karelin in their Olympic bout.
When I saw Gardner vs. Byers, I thought "Is this the way this guy always wins, by just waiting for his opponent to make a mistake?"
Granted, this is obviously a successful strategy that has served Gardner well, but it doesn't make for an exciting spectator sport.
As Chip said though, it probably has more to do with it being the super heavyweight class than it does with Gardner specifically.
I agree Nick. They could have shown any match as the "main event" since the event was aired about two weeks after it actually happened. They didn't really need to show them in any order. Cael Sanderson would have been a good choice, like you mentioned. Another good one was the Hall/Paulson match (which they did show, which was good).
And I'm sure there were a number of other matches that would have been way more exciting. Right in the middle of the show, they showed five second clips of about 10 different matches and glossed over some of the best/most exciting wrestlers we've got. WTF?
Minor rant: Why the F#CK did they spend almost half the time on women's wrestling?! It drives me nuts because all the gender equity crap is destroying wrestling (here in the US, anyway). It sort of struck me as rubbing salt in the wound "Hey, we're killing off wrestling for arbitrary women's rights issues. Sorry 'bout that! Here, watch a bunch of women wrestle!" Even regardless of that, I can garauntee that 99.99% of the people watching were not interested in watching the women. I'm sure the average watcher would have much rather watched, say... the Joe Heskitt vs. Joe Williams match instead of one of the women's matches.
!!WARNING!! Going way out on a politically incorrect limb here:
Also for people new to the sport, I don't think most people who saw the very mannish, butch-ass women wrestling gave them a great impression of the sport. Some of the those women were pretty frightening, and if that program was my first introduction to the sport, I would have found that to be a big turn-off (I don't mean sexual turn-off, just that I would have thought it weird, and would not be interested in tuning in again). And by the way, I'm a pretty liberal guy with pretty easy-going views on gender roles, and I still was a bit taken aback by some of those "women."
Note: I'm not saying women shouldn't wrestle! They are welcome to wrestle, that's fine with me. But I think that, on the very rare occasion that wrestling gets on TV, they should treat it as the potential PR gold mine that it is and take EVERY advantage of it to help save wrestling. Making half of the show about women does not take advantage of it.
Oh, by the way, my wife and my visiting mother-in-law came into the room where I was watching the wrestling on Saturday morning during a women's match. They both acted like, "Oh my god! That's a WOMAN? Eww. *THIS* is the wrestling you've been wanting to watch all week?" lol
"But I think that, on the very rare occasion that wrestling gets on TV, they should treat it as the potential PR gold mine that it is and take EVERY advantage of it to help save wrestling. Making half of the show about women does not take advantage of it."
I agree!
They should show the BEST matches possible (like the Hall/Paulson match you listed).
This would have meant perhaps showing the highlight clips of the womens matches and not first over-hyping and then saving the Gardner/Byers match until the end.
If you want to grab a new audience, you've got to put your best foot forward, and quickly to boot!
Great posts Chip. Wrestling gets on the tube once in a blue moon, why waste so much of that precious (to wrestling fans anyway) air time on the women?
*sigh* I agree, guys, I agree. I don't want to go so far as to say they "squandered" an opportunity while they had air-time for wrestling, but I will say they definitley could have used it better. Too much time spent on the women, and the last 25 minutes (out of only 2 hours!) spent on two fat dudes leaning on each other. That's not going to "grab" anyone other than a die-hard fan.
(note: I don't mean the "two fat dudes leaning on each other" comment to be disrespectful to those two guys who could each dismantle me in under 4 seconds - I just mean that is what what the uninitiated would see while flipping through the channels)
They did show some good wrestling, but there was a lot more they could have shown that could have really grabbed the attention of the uninitiated flipping through channels and make them think "Whoa, look at those two bad-ass looking dudes going for each other's throats! This sport is crazy!" (crazy in a good way)
Unfortunately, I think that was the case in only a little of what they showed.
(In my humble opinion)
"...two fat dudes leaning on each other..."
Sadly, that's just about how my co-worker described it, which pretty much validates your point!
Arg!