21 Replies to “palate cleanser”

1. sdferr says:

   December 3, 2013 at 4:49 pm

   I really like these, intensely. And though I enjoy the heck out of ’em, I’m too damn ignorant to actually know what I’m seein’, so any knowledgeable commentary is highly welcome. Like for instance, it’s hard to keep up with the scoring as it accumulates, since often enough the ref’s hands are out of frame, etc., (where I’m even capable of guessing at the relative value of scoring events as they proceed). Still, keep ’em comin’, even without commentary.

2. leigh says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:04 pm

   I love these. My kid is wrestling varsity and I never get to see him until the do the end of the season stuff. They are always on the road, it seems.

   OT: On the Satch the Champeen thread, I finally noticed he’s wearing a sweatshirt from Stillwater, OK. Atta boy!

3. Diana says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:10 pm

   He’s really good, Jeff. Relentless … just like his Dad.

4. Jeff G. says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:16 pm

   In this one, the scoring was as follows (going from memory so I hope I don’t mess it up for you sdferr): Satch gets the initial two points with a takedown (he shoots a double leg and comes around and gains control of his opponents hips); Satch is then penalized 1 point for illegally clasping his own hands together on the ground, which you can only do if you are in a pinning combination. 2-1 at that point.

   After that point is awarded his opponent, they start again with Satch on the top of referees position. His opponent grabs his wrist off the whistle and does a kind of modified ninja roll / granby roll, coming up and around to control Satchel’s hips for a 2 pt takedown. Opponent leads 3-2.

   First period ends.

   Second period begins: Satchel wins the coin flip and it’s our choice of position: we can choose neutral (both on the feet), bottom, top, or defer. With the score 3-2 I gambled and deferred, meaning if the match went to a third and final period we’d choose position then. Generally, the opponent will choose either neutral (if he has a good shot) or bottom (because escaping leads to a point), but here he chose top position. That means he believed he had the skill to break Satchel down and maybe turn him for back points or a pin.

   Satchel’s opponent gets on him before the ref can ask if Satchel is set, leading to the cupped hand caution. No points. After that, as Satchel is trying for his one point escape, his opponent illegally clasps his own hands and the ref stops the match, awarding Satchel a point. The score is now 3-3.

   Because of the infraction, Satchel returns to the down position. He does a quick stand-up, gets his elbow in fast to block his opponent, and is able to cut away from him for an escape point. 4-3 in favor of Satchel.

   Satchel follows that up with a double leg takedown, netting another two points. 6-3.

   Once again, though, Satch clasped his own hands and is penalized another point, causing the stoppage. Score now 6-4. From the down position, his opponent twice again tries the modified granby roll, but Satchel is able to keep him from circling around and taking his back. This prevents his opponent from getting the takedown, and Satchel is able to regain control as the period ends.

   The third period now begins and our gamble pays off: leading 6-4, Satchel takes bottom position. His opponent will need to take him to his back to score 3 back points and take the lead, but Satchel is generally very good at either getting his escape point or keeping his opponent from breaking him down and turning him. If nothing were to happen, Satchel would win the match without ever getting up from the bottom, so long as he wasn’t turned.

   But Satch decides to pull a fast one and hits a roll off the whistle. He should have his opponent’s wrist, but instead he just goes full on front roll, creating space so that when his opponent tries to follow him, Satch has room to get up and break away, which he does. His opponent actually did a very good job of following Satch there, but Satchel was quick to his feet, got his hips down, and cut away in a hurry for a 1- point escape. 7-4.

   Then, as he did twice before in the match, he showed a quick burst on his takedown, got repelled, but had the presence of mind to reshoot as his opponent tried to regain his position. That reshot — another double leg — resulted in the final two point takedown of the match. 9-4. Satchel rode him the rest of the way, not allowing him up and out, for a final score of 9-4.

   At the very end of the match, Satchel stuffed his opponent’s head and was circling around to his front headlock, from where he loves to do a move called the Twister. I wish the match hadn’t ended because he had it set up and it likely would have resulted in a pin.

   But hey, 9-4 is good enough, especially against a tournament-grade kid who weighed 5-7 pounds more than he.

5. sdferr says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm

   Much obliged. Better still, I can combine the instruction with another couple of slow viewings, and hopefully come out with having learned a little more. One thing, though, at 3:12 on the ref stops for the clasped hand signal, then goes to the trouble to demonstrate on Satchel’s arm the difference between grasping the opponent’s arm with both hands or with one hand the opp. and the other one’s own grasping hand — the latter I take it is ok, but the former not? Or have I got them backwards?

6. Shermlaw says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:43 pm

   Very cool.

   And thanks for the primer. I was going to ask for a link to try and figure out the nuances to appreciate the video more.

7. sdferr says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:50 pm

   Shermlaw, I’ve been perusing links available here, particularly stuff in the “rules and regulations” category — there’s a pdf there with photos of positions and rulings, albeit not entirely great captioning.

8. sdferr says:

   December 3, 2013 at 5:51 pm

   Oops, the “here” link.

9. Shermlaw says:

   December 3, 2013 at 6:17 pm

   Thanks, sdferr. My kids are/were soccer and hoops players. Heretofore, the only wrestling with which I was a acquainted occurred in the back seat of a 1968 Ford LTD with a black landau roof and 8 Track Cassette player (after-market).

   Now that I think about it, that’s what ultimately led to the soccer/hoops business referred to in the second sentence. [Smiley Emoticon Thingy]

10. Benedick says:

    December 3, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Satch is a goddamn Badass Motherfucker.

11. Jeff G. says:

    December 3, 2013 at 8:34 pm

    Two on one is legitimate. Thats your two hands on his one arm. Your hand on your hand like that is considered clasping. That ref is actually one of the better refs in the area. I like that he takes time out to explain to kids what he’s calling them on, even if most refs would miss the fouls he’s calling on kids this age.

    That will help them as they get older and the calls become more strictly enforced.

12. hellomynameissteve says:

    December 3, 2013 at 10:12 pm

    It’s really incredible that they can go that hard for that long. I recall having a wrestling unit in PE, and the teacher saying, “You’re going to work harder in the next 5 minutes than you’ve ever worked in your life.”

13. McGehee says:

    December 3, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    Wrestling ain’t badminton, that’s for sure.

14. Drumwaster says:

    December 3, 2013 at 11:20 pm

    and the teacher saying, “You’re going to work harder in the next 5 minutes than you’ve ever worked in your life.”

    So how quickly did you learn to forge your mommy’s signature so that you could just go do study hall? Or was it vague enough to try and pass off as the doctor’s?

    “No, Pepper really is his name, SWEARSIES.”

15. bour3 says:

    December 3, 2013 at 11:56 pm

    Ace!

16. JohnInFirestone says:

    December 4, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Satch’s shoot at 2:45 and his bridge at 3:35 are incredibly impressive. Nice job, Satchel!

17. John Bradley says:

    December 4, 2013 at 9:36 am

    But why does someone keep tossing a giant floppy white dildo onto the mat? Seems like the sort of thing you’d keep at home, in that nasty little drawer of the nightstand.

18. John Bradley says:

    December 4, 2013 at 11:10 am

    That’s a serious question, btw.

19. sdferr says:

    December 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    But why does someone keep tossing a giant floppy white dildo onto the mat?

    It’s the great father god Zeus himself — the someone — and the floppy thing is his thunder-spume signalling the expiration of a time period. Great father god Zeus doesn’t trouble himself with mortals’ comical reflections on his sexlife.

20. RI Red says:

    December 4, 2013 at 8:25 pm

    Btw, steve, I’m back from vaca and I sent that info to Jeff. All he’ll need is an email to which to send it. You can acknowledge here or in a private email to Jeff.
    No crowing, I’ve done well and worked hard at it for 43 years.
    You see, I really understand taxation for the common greater good, as in the enumerated powers of government. Things like national defense, to wit, the military ( when it’s not being used for nation-building or social experimentation), border control (you can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both) and regulating interstate commerce (not forbidding a wheat farmer from growing wheat for his own consumption because it might have an effect on national wheat prices).
    I fully support “national” health care – if the necessary votes are there to amend the constitution to so provide for it. We constitutionalists are fine with changing social expectations, as long as it’s done by the rules. There’s a reason the founders made it difficult to amend the constitution: you really need a lot of people and states to buy into the changes. O-care is the textbook example of social policy being rammed through in an unconstitutional manner – if it’s so good, sell it to the people and do it by the rules. Any other way is simply illegitimate, regardless of how morally compelling it may be.
    I don’t know if you were here a year or two ago, but I reported on going to a constitutional law CLE. One of the presenters, a constitutional law professor, made the statement that he believed that health care was a right and that he didn’t want to have to read into the constitution to find it. I was appalled. If it is a right , let’s do it right. It’s how you get there that matters.

21. John Bradley says:

    December 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Thanks sdferr, that’s as fine an explanation as any.

Comments are closed.