I had a match a number of years ago that was very similar to this. There was an unknown element to it in that neither person really knew what was expected of them before each round. It involved drawing lots from 3 different bowls:
Bowl 1: Each wrestler writes down the names of 5 different submission holds. There can be duplication if each wrestler's list contains matching hold(s). These are put into the bowl.
Bowl 2: Numbers 1-10 are put into this bowl. This bowl would indicate the number of submissions needed by aggressor to win the round
Bowl 3: Numbers 1-10 are put into this bowl. This bowl would indicate the number of minutes that the aggressor had to get the number of required submissions.
The guys could decide who would be on receiving end first. He would choose lots from each bowl. If he pulled out Boston crab - 3 - 7, then the aggressor had to get 3 submissions, via Boston crab in 7 minutes in order to win. If he didn't meet his quota or if the "victim" escaped, then the victim would win the round.
This would alternate back and forth until a clear winner was decided or one man was unable/unwilling to continue. Bowls 2 and 3 could result in some interesting situations. If 10 and 1 were pulled, then the aggressor would have to get 10 subs in 1 minute (not likely, but he would really have to crank on the pressure quickly and fully). If 1 and 10 were pulled, then the aggressor could really take his time turning up the pressure without having to take him out right way. Of course, the numbers could be completely different.
For those wondering, I wrestled a real masochist who won the challenge. I had a good pain threshold but this guy simply refused to tap.
I love the idea of a lot of these 'games' and would love to be the jobber in them. I especially like version 2 of this (which makes more sense to me than version 1), as it truly tests how resilient to holds you can be.
Anyone interested in playing these games with me, get in touch!
The applier selects six submission holds, and mentally arranges them in the order of their choosing. For the sake of this explanation, I will not be using any actual hold names, but will instead use the terms "Hold #1", "Hold #2" etc to refer to the corresponding hold chosen by the applier. The basic premise is that the applier places the victim in each hold for a slow count of ten seconds, then releases them and immediately applies the next hold in the list. However, if the victim submits to a hold, it is then replaced at the end of the list, and re-applied after the first "run-through" of the six holds. I will provide a hypothetical example to better illustrate this.
Hold #1 -> Hold #2 -> Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6
Here is the list at the beginning of the sequence. Now let us assume that the victim withstands the full 10 seconds of Hold #1, but submits to Hold #2 before the full count. Hold #1 is removed from the list, because it has been endured for the full count, but Hold #2 is moved to the end of the list, making it look like this:
Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6 -> Hold #2
Now assume the victim endures 10 seconds of Hold #3, but submits to Hold #4. The resulting list would look like this:
Hold #5 -> Hold #6 -> Hold #2 -> Hold #4
Continue through the list, removing all holds the victim endures for the full count, and repeating any holds that they submit to. In essence, this means that the minimum punishment the victim will endure is 60 seconds, while the maximum punishment could theoretically stretch on indefinitely if they keep submitting, and thus keep causing a hold to be repeated. Once the applier is down to one remaining hold, a potential repeat situation would look like this (using Hold #6 for this example):
Hold #6 -> Hold #6
Should this happen, the applier must still release the hold upon submission, then immediately re-apply the same hold. DO NOT simply keep the hold on and re-start the count. Obviously, the applier would be trying to make the victim submit, and thus prolong their punishment, but not to such a degree that they exceed a safe level of the particular hold being used. Each hold should only be applied at submission level, and no further, or the possibility of injury becomes too great.
Version 2
The applier selects six submission holds, and mentally arranges them in the order of their choosing. For the sake of this explanation, I will not be using any actual hold names, but will instead use the terms "Hold #1", "Hold #2" etc to refer to the corresponding hold chosen by the applier. The basic premise is that the applier places the victim in each hold for a slow count of ten seconds, then releases them and immediately applies the next hold in the list. However, if the victim submits to a hold, it is then replaced at the end of the list, and re-applied after the first "run-through" of the six holds.
The new condition however is that if the victim does NOT submit then the hold is replaced at the end of the list BUT applied for 20 seconds the next time. I will provide a hypothetical example to better illustrate this.
Hold #1 -> Hold #2 -> Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6
Above is the list at the beginning of the sequence. Now let us assume that the victim withstands the full 10 seconds of Hold #1, but submits to Hold #2 before the full 10 count. Hold #1 is moved to the end of the list, and applied for 20 seconds next time and Hold #2 is also put to the end of the list, but only applied for 10 seconds, so at this stage the list would currently look like this:
Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6 ->Hold #1 (20 seconds) -> Hold #2 (10 seconds)
You see how the rule works: no submission, time increases by 20 seconds. Submission, time remains the same.
Now assume the victim endures 10 seconds of Hold #3, but submits to Hold #4. The list would now look like this:
Hold #5 -> Hold #6 -> Hold #1 (20 seconds)-> Hold #2 (10 seconds)-> Hold #3 (20 seconds)-> Hold #4 (10 seconds)
Continue through the list, increasing the submission time by 10 seconds for all holds the victim endures for the full count, and repeating any holds for the same amount of time that they submit to. In essence, this means that the punishment the victim endures increases all the time until their natural tolerance is reached. For example someone may be able to take a hammerlock for 2 minutes and once that threshold is reached they will keep getting it for that long.
The difference from version 1 is that the victim NEVER gets down to just 1 hold. They probably end up in a cycle of holds which they submit to just before reaching the assigned time for each.
Obviously, the applier would be trying to make the victim submit, and thus prolong their punishment, but not to such a degree that they exceed a safe level of the particular hold being used. Each hold should only be applied at submission level, and no further, or the possibility of injury becomes too great.
Hardmatch (99)
12.5.2014 00:51I had a match a number of years ago that was very similar to this. There was an unknown element to it in that neither person really knew what was expected of them before each round. It involved drawing lots from 3 different bowls:
Bowl 1: Each wrestler writes down the names of 5 different submission holds. There can be duplication if each wrestler's list contains matching hold(s). These are put into the bowl.
Bowl 2: Numbers 1-10 are put into this bowl. This bowl would indicate the number of submissions needed by aggressor to win the round
Bowl 3: Numbers 1-10 are put into this bowl. This bowl would indicate the number of minutes that the aggressor had to get the number of required submissions.
The guys could decide who would be on receiving end first. He would choose lots from each bowl. If he pulled out Boston crab - 3 - 7, then the aggressor had to get 3 submissions, via Boston crab in 7 minutes in order to win. If he didn't meet his quota or if the "victim" escaped, then the victim would win the round.
This would alternate back and forth until a clear winner was decided or one man was unable/unwilling to continue. Bowls 2 and 3 could result in some interesting situations. If 10 and 1 were pulled, then the aggressor would have to get 10 subs in 1 minute (not likely, but he would really have to crank on the pressure quickly and fully). If 1 and 10 were pulled, then the aggressor could really take his time turning up the pressure without having to take him out right way. Of course, the numbers could be completely different.
For those wondering, I wrestled a real masochist who won the challenge. I had a good pain threshold but this guy simply refused to tap.
bijobber4humiliation (0)
13.6.2012 04:22love it all the more humiliation the better
NZ Heel (7)
17.3.2012 00:25Prefer scenario 2. Makes a for a great humiliation match.
wristlock (13)
18.8.2011 11:32What a great idea wold love to try this out with someone, anybody interested
musclebear2b (4)
10.7.2011 01:32I love the idea of a lot of these 'games' and would love to be the jobber in them. I especially like version 2 of this (which makes more sense to me than version 1), as it truly tests how resilient to holds you can be.
Anyone interested in playing these games with me, get in touch!
BearhugAddict (3)
13.3.2011 12:33Submission-Off (2)
Version 1
The applier selects six submission holds, and mentally arranges them in the order of their choosing. For the sake of this explanation, I will not be using any actual hold names, but will instead use the terms "Hold #1", "Hold #2" etc to refer to the corresponding hold chosen by the applier. The basic premise is that the applier places the victim in each hold for a slow count of ten seconds, then releases them and immediately applies the next hold in the list. However, if the victim submits to a hold, it is then replaced at the end of the list, and re-applied after the first "run-through" of the six holds. I will provide a hypothetical example to better illustrate this.
Hold #1 -> Hold #2 -> Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6
Here is the list at the beginning of the sequence. Now let us assume that the victim withstands the full 10 seconds of Hold #1, but submits to Hold #2 before the full count. Hold #1 is removed from the list, because it has been endured for the full count, but Hold #2 is moved to the end of the list, making it look like this:
Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6 -> Hold #2
Now assume the victim endures 10 seconds of Hold #3, but submits to Hold #4. The resulting list would look like this:
Hold #5 -> Hold #6 -> Hold #2 -> Hold #4
Continue through the list, removing all holds the victim endures for the full count, and repeating any holds that they submit to. In essence, this means that the minimum punishment the victim will endure is 60 seconds, while the maximum punishment could theoretically stretch on indefinitely if they keep submitting, and thus keep causing a hold to be repeated. Once the applier is down to one remaining hold, a potential repeat situation would look like this (using Hold #6 for this example):
Hold #6 -> Hold #6
Should this happen, the applier must still release the hold upon submission, then immediately re-apply the same hold. DO NOT simply keep the hold on and re-start the count. Obviously, the applier would be trying to make the victim submit, and thus prolong their punishment, but not to such a degree that they exceed a safe level of the particular hold being used. Each hold should only be applied at submission level, and no further, or the possibility of injury becomes too great.
Version 2
The applier selects six submission holds, and mentally arranges them in the order of their choosing. For the sake of this explanation, I will not be using any actual hold names, but will instead use the terms "Hold #1", "Hold #2" etc to refer to the corresponding hold chosen by the applier. The basic premise is that the applier places the victim in each hold for a slow count of ten seconds, then releases them and immediately applies the next hold in the list. However, if the victim submits to a hold, it is then replaced at the end of the list, and re-applied after the first "run-through" of the six holds.
The new condition however is that if the victim does NOT submit then the hold is replaced at the end of the list BUT applied for 20 seconds the next time. I will provide a hypothetical example to better illustrate this.
Hold #1 -> Hold #2 -> Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6
Above is the list at the beginning of the sequence. Now let us assume that the victim withstands the full 10 seconds of Hold #1, but submits to Hold #2 before the full 10 count. Hold #1 is moved to the end of the list, and applied for 20 seconds next time and Hold #2 is also put to the end of the list, but only applied for 10 seconds, so at this stage the list would currently look like this:
Hold #3 -> Hold #4 -> Hold #5 -> Hold #6 ->Hold #1 (20 seconds) -> Hold #2 (10 seconds)
You see how the rule works: no submission, time increases by 20 seconds. Submission, time remains the same.
Now assume the victim endures 10 seconds of Hold #3, but submits to Hold #4. The list would now look like this:
Hold #5 -> Hold #6 -> Hold #1 (20 seconds)-> Hold #2 (10 seconds)-> Hold #3 (20 seconds)-> Hold #4 (10 seconds)
Continue through the list, increasing the submission time by 10 seconds for all holds the victim endures for the full count, and repeating any holds for the same amount of time that they submit to. In essence, this means that the punishment the victim endures increases all the time until their natural tolerance is reached. For example someone may be able to take a hammerlock for 2 minutes and once that threshold is reached they will keep getting it for that long.
The difference from version 1 is that the victim NEVER gets down to just 1 hold. They probably end up in a cycle of holds which they submit to just before reaching the assigned time for each.
Obviously, the applier would be trying to make the victim submit, and thus prolong their punishment, but not to such a degree that they exceed a safe level of the particular hold being used. Each hold should only be applied at submission level, and no further, or the possibility of injury becomes too great.