Olympics: How they ruined wrestling

I was a wrestler in high school (of no distinction whatsoever). But I am a student of the sport and have followed it ever since. It seems that the FILA wrestling's chiefs are continually frustrated that the sport is not commercially popular. Wrestlers are fanatics about their sport and they can't fathom why not everyone is. As a result, they keep changing the rules, hoping that the newest wrinkle will add action and improve the ratings. It never works. And the more recent rule changes are ruining the sport.

This year in the Olympics, FILA has instituted a three-period format, where the wrestler who "wins" two period out of three wins the match. I am not sure, but I guess the idea is that a wrestler who falls behind early, that is is the first period, can come back by winning the second. This means that the leader can't sit on a lead, so there will be more attempts to score.

But the result is the opposite. Now a wrestler can score a single point in a period and he has every incnetive to stall for the rest of the round. It also means that a wrestler can win the hout by compiling a 2-0 lead over four minutes-- at that point the third period is eliminated. Wrestling is supposed to be about strength, endurance and toughness. Winning 2-0 in four minutes shows nothing. Four minutes is too short. The trailing wrestler should have a chance to come back.

Also, in recent years, FILA has added off-mat judges who must confirm scoring calls made by the mat official. This ref-by-committee may make scoring more accurate. But it also leads to conferences that break the action, which gives wrestlers the chance to rest, which negates the role of endirance. The real problem with the judging is that back points are so subjective, as a wrestler can gan them by "exposing" the back even if he isn't controlling his opponent. It all results in defensive, reactive wrestling. The rules should reward aggression, control and scoring. Now they do the opposite.