It’s a paradox in combat sports. 

Why would someone with endless skill hold back? He or she may have the tools to dominate an under-matched opponent but does just enough to win. 

In wrestling, we wonder why some wrestlers don’t shoot more — especially those who can seemingly score at will. The most dynamic combat athletes compete with freedom under duress — a rare quality that often yields memorable results. 

Lee Kemp dominated the country and the world on his terms, often in low-scoring affairs. He scored as he pleased and opponents rarely penetrated his stingy defense. 

Olympic gold medalist Dave Schultz famously said Kemp would easily blow out his opponents 2-1 or 3-2.

Translation: Kemp could score on you and you couldn’t score on him. He would dominate you without points. 

Results: Kemp was a three-time NCAA champion for Wisconsin (1976-78), four-time finalist (1975-78), three-time World champion (1978-79, ‘82), and 1980 Olympian (boycotted by the United States). 

“Once I learned how to control tie-ups, I realized that you don’t have to shoot that much,” Kemp said. “The harder my opponents tried to score, the more exhausted they got because they were having to break through my tie-ups. 

“I shut people down and waited for my opportunity. Once I got my opportunity, I knew that I could shut my opponent down. I knew I could hold a one-point lead for a year. We could come back to the room every day for a year and you wouldn’t score on me if that was what my goal was.” 

High Risk, High Reward

Olympic gold medalist Randy Lewis was the opposite. He wanted opponents to reach his legs so he could counter. This led to high-scoring shootouts against risk-takers, but frustration if the rules didn’t force action. 

The best-case scenario happened four times in 1988 when Lewis faced John Smith, an eventual six-time World and Olympic champion. Smith won the series 3-1 to make the Olympic team, but the matches are all-time classics. 

“Somebody asked me how I’m going to keep John Smith off of my legs,” Lewis said. “I couldn’t keep a fourth-grader off of my legs. I’m going to go out there, give it to him, and he’s going to keep shooting and I’m going to keep countering. He’s the best finisher in the world and I’m the best counter-wrestler in the world. 

“He’s going to get to my leg about 10 times and I’m going to counter about five times and he’s going to score about five times. Somebody is going to score almost every time he gets in. There are very few stalemates in my matches and a lot of action. 

“I had never heard of downblocking until I was 40 years old. Brandon Slay was doing a clinic and he was showing downblocking. I asked him to show me what downblocking was because I’d never heard of it before.”

At a basic level, one’s style is an outward expression of who you are — and where you are — inside. 

Kemp was cerebral and deliberate. 

Lewis was bold and entertaining. 

And both styles worked. 

“This is the key: it was not important to me to beat someone up,” Kemp said. That’s not who I am. If I’m beating you, and I know I’m going to beat you, then that’s good enough for me. I don’t have to keep taking you down or try to maul you or pin you. 

“That’s why I never showed a lot of emotion after my matches. I’m not saying that’s good or bad. Randy Lewis would stick you and jump up and roar like a lion. That’s not my personality.”

'I Didn't Trust My Conditioning Enough To Push The Pace'

The revolving door of rule changes ultimately affects outcomes and offensive output, but reaching one’s full human potential is rarely predicated by someone else. 

Nate Gallick was a three-time All-American (2004-06), two-time national finalist (2005-06) and 2006 NCAA champion for Iowa State. Gallick was a selective shooter who, like Kemp, could score at will but sometimes chose not to. He was 9-1 during his 10-match college series with Oklahoma’s two-time NCAA champion Teyon Ware but the blueprint was the same for both: score first and hold on.

Ware won in the 2005 NCAA finals, 3-2, only for Gallick to return the favor the following year by the same score. 

“It was a game of chess,” Gallick said. “Push the pace, look for an opportunity, and if an opportunity came up, whoever could capitalize on that would come away with the win. Even though I had a good record as far as wins versus losses, I always approached every match as though it was someone dangerous, and if I don’t bring 100 percent of what I can offer I’m in danger of getting beat.” 

Through nearly 20 years of hindsight, Gallick wishes he would have taken more risk. He got too comfortable with his defense and underestimated his abilities from every position.

“If I could go back in time, I think I would have changed a lot,” Gallick said. “I could scramble, I had good defense, I had strong leg attacks, and I’m pretty damn fast. For me, I didn’t trust my conditioning enough to really go out there and push the pace.

“Instead, I’d get a takedown or two regardless of the talent level of the person I was wrestling and get a win. I regret having that mentality versus that warrior mentality of going out there and scoring 100 points because I can. Every time I score 100 points it’s going to get that much easier the next match.”

Return On Investment

Taking a shot is a return on investment since there is inherent risk. You are forcibly putting yourself underneath someone only to give that person a possible advantage.

Human nature and experience factor into every decision. Kyle Dake might be the best counter-wrestler in the world, so an ill-advised or careless shot often leads to a compromising position. That can get into someone's head if he knows what Dake can do. 

“Look at some of the best wrestlers of all time and some of the best wrestlers right now,” said USA Wrestling men’s national team coach Bill Zadick. “Some athletes come out like gangbusters and are offensive juggernauts and then they learn to become more efficient because it’s a more efficient use of resources to let (someone else) take the risk. You shoot at me and I become more proficient at counter offense and I stop your attack and take advantage of your position. 

“There’s the cliche that there are levels to this but you get to a level where you’re really not competing against anyone else but yourself. If you take care of your job at the highest level of proficiency that you’re capable of, it almost doesn’t matter who your opponent is.

“That’s what innovators in the sport do. They refine things down to the most essential parts. That’s the art of our world. It’s an outward expression of who we are.”