Holm vs Couch Sept 23

[Dee Williams]

AUG 23 - Fresquez Productions, Inc. announced their September 23rd show at a press conference held at Isleta Casino & Resort near Albuquerque, NM. The show, billed as "The Revolution!" headlines Holly Holm (14-1-2, 5 KOs), who will defend her 140-pound IBA belt against Jane Couch (27-8, 9 KOs) of Bristol, U.K.

[Martin Peters]

Holm should win easily. Couch is way over her peak.

[jr]

Jane Couch is a light welterweight and has fought as a lightweight in the past. Holly Holm is a welterweight and will unlikely fight as a light welterweight again.

Team Holm and the promoter have booked another “safe” bout with Jane Couch. Couch is a brave and courageous fighter due to the competition she has had, but she is not a match for a welterweight.

Mary Jo Sanders, Sumya Anani, Terri Blair (the “new” one), Angelica Martinez (with time to prepare), and Eliza Olson are the fighters Team Holm should be eyeing.

[len]

Couch's best days are behind her and Holly isn't going to lose a decision in Alburquerque.

[jr]

len said:

Couch's best days are behind her and Holly isn't going to lose a decision in Alburquerque.

The promoter’s strategy is obvious. Lure boxing legends beyond their prime with significant purses, fight only in Albuquerque where the same referees and judges will apply hometown bias to scoring, and build up Holly Holm’s reputation.

The fight will probably end with a decision. Jane Couch is a seasoned veteran and knows how to compete with Holm. Holm, a martial arts tournament type fighter, pleases the hometown judges but lacks power. Couch has fought much harder punchers, fighters Team Holm wouldn’t dare challenge. Ask Team Holm if Myriam Lamare is a possible opponent.

The June 10th Holm-Martinez contest is a good indicator of the scoring expected for the Couch fight. All three judges scored the fight 98-92, but some members of the biased Albuquerque press believed Angel Martinez won four or five rounds. So expect lop-sided scoring for Holm again.

[jr]

jr said:

len said:

Couch's best days are behind her and Holly isn't going to lose a decision in Alburquerque.

The promoter’s strategy is obvious. Lure boxing legends beyond their prime with significant purses, fight only in Albuquerque where the same referees and judges will apply hometown bias to scoring, and build up Holly Holm’s reputation.

The fight will probably end with a decision. Jane Couch is a seasoned veteran and knows how to compete with Holm. Holm, a martial arts tournament type fighter, pleases the hometown judges but lacks power. Couch has fought much harder punchers, fighters Team Holm wouldn’t dare challenge. Ask Team Holm if Myriam Lamare is a possible opponent.

The June 10th Holm-Martinez contest is a good indicator of the scoring expected for the Couch fight. All three judges scored the fight 98-92, but some members of the biased Albuquerque press believed Angel Martinez won four or five rounds. So expect lop-sided scoring for Holm again.

Albuquerque, You Have A Problem

Christie Martin complained about a lack of action in their September 16th 2005 fight and she wants a rematch, but not in Albuquerque.

Shadina Pennybaker was stopped by a final head butt in round 7 of their contest on February 24th.

The Albuquerque press wrote that Angelica Martinez may have won four or five rounds in the June 10th bout that was scored 98-92 by all three judges.

And now Jane Couch, also cut by a head butt, stated with her trainer Tex Woodward that the 100-90 scoring of the September 23rd match was wrong and the bout was a much closer contest.

In my opinion, no team with any respect for its fighter would send her to compete against Holly Holm in Albuquerque. Setting aside questionable matchmaking, there is no chance of success at this venue. I would not be surprised if Team Holm will soon find no boxers willing to compete in Albuquerque.

[Dee Williams]

jr said:

I would not be surprised if Team Holm will soon find no boxers willing to compete in Albuquerque.

I think there will also soon be no boxers with any kind of home town following and successful local promotion that J.R. (one of the few regulars here who insists on posting only by his initials) doesn't pour cold water on every time they fight.

We can all take note that Holly Holm hasn't fought outside of New Mexico and Colorado. She is a regional phenom so far. But she's now fought Christy Martin (right as Martin was allegedly close to her peak of preparation for fighting Rijker), Mia St. John (everyone anywhere near her weight wanted to fight her, and many have), Angelica Martinez three times (first was tough, second was a draw, third was a 10-rd rematch after that 6-rd draw), Shadina Pennybaker and now Jane Couch. Add Terri Blair, veteran Gloria Ramirez from in-state, Lisa Lewis and Holm's archrival Stephanie Jaramillo (also from ABQ) and you've covered all but ONE of Holm's last three years of opponents (her last 13 fights). Is that such a shabby list for a fighter with only 17 pro fights?

Sure - we can all wait for Anani to appear on Holm's fight list. And we can speculate about what would happen if she did. But Holm was hardly alone in steering clear of Sumya during the time that Holm has been a contender.

Maybe we'd all like to see Holm fight Mary Jo Sanders, too - it would be good to see one or both of them leave home for a change - Mary Jo stays pretty close to Detroit.

But Holm's not exactly been fighting novices, either. I wonder how many people in this Forum gave Holm much of a chance when she signed on for the Martin fight, before they met in the ring?

Martin says there wasnt enough action in their fight, you say? Well, it's not like Christy wasn't there. Why didn't she try to make some? That was supposed to be Christy's forte, after all. The fact that she couldn't, and didn't, showed that Holly had a plan ... not for a slugfest, but for a boxing match. Martin couldn't knock her off that plan. That's Holm's fault? I don't see it like that.

And anyone remember how many years Martin herself dodged Rijker? Holm has a whole lot of dodging still to do before she would begin to reach that level of hiding from a dangerous opponent.

And if you don't think Angel Martinez was a fair rematch for Holm, well just look who Christy wants to fight next ... Angel Martinez.

It seems like J.R. has a major problem with female boxers who get to be popular in their own local market, who get favorable publicity from their local sports press. He's written the similar comments about Jessica Rakoczy, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Holly Holm and now Sharon Anyos.

But isn't this what good managers and promoters should try to do for their boxers, work towards getting them fights in their local market while they build up their reputations? Some are much better at it than others. Is that something that's only allowed for the Germans, like Halmich?

We all love and admire the Road Warriors, like Alicia Ashley, like Jane Couch, like Kelsey Jeffries, like Eliza Olson, like Sharon Anyos earlier in her career and like some of this forum's members - Terri Blair, Dee Hamaguchi, Stephanie Dobbs, Yvonne Reis - who will go anywhere to fight. And we'd all like to see neutrally and fairly judged fights all the time. But is it really as bad for the sport as J.R. makes out if a few female boxers are able to garner a following in their home town so they are not on the road all the time? Building up local markets for female boxing around local favorites ought to be part of the picture too, with commissions, manager alertness and pre-fight negotiations dealing with the fairness issues. Would it be so bad if more female pro boxers could pack the home crowds in and become local sports figures like Holm is now doing in Albuquerque?

Surely we need a mix - of markets where women's boxing is popular and crowds will turn out to see it - and of fighters willing to travel. It can't be all one or all the other. TV is where the money and big exposure are, but there have to be some venues where women's fights are a big deal too. How do we get those?

We'll all think a lot more of Holm if she can go to Vegas or Kansas City or Detroit and win without any help from "local" judges and referees. She will have to do that at some point to become credible as a champion. But Jane Couch said before this fight that she never heard of Holm until she (Holm) fought Martin. Getting Martin to Albuquerque - and then out-boxing her - was a good move for Holm, and one that I bet not many here would have given her much odds of succeeding at before they fought. Building on local success, becoming the Main Event draw for a region, how many of you would pass that up if you had the chance? How hard should we be on the boxers who, given that chance and having some skills, are using it?
This is a question I am asking for discussion, I am not saying I know the answer. And I know it's not a level playing field, not everyone gets the same chance and that is not fair, but can the sport grow without some places where fans become enthusiastic about a local fighter?

Winning on the road against top competition is the acid test for any boxer, and the hallmark of the true champion. Holm and Mrdjenovich haven't done that yet - and yes there are good reasons for concern about ongoing home town fighters and the effects of local judges ... but at least there are also good reasons why we know their names! They've already put more on the line than just their initials.

[jr]

admin said:

jr said:

I would not be surprised if Team Holm will soon find no boxers willing to compete in Albuquerque.

I think there will also soon be no boxers with any kind of home town following and successful local promotion that J.R. (one of the few regulars here who insists on posting only by his initials) doesn't pour cold water on every time they fight.

We can all take note that Holly Holm hasn't fought outside of New Mexico and Colorado. She is a regional phenom so far. But she's now fought Christy Martin (right as Martin was allegedly close to her peak of preparation for fighting Rijker), Mia St. John (everyone anywhere near her weight wanted to fight her, and many have), Angelica Martinez three times (first was tough, second was a draw, third was a 10-rd rematch after that 6-rd draw), Shadina Pennybaker and now Jane Couch. Add Terri Blair, veteran Gloria Ramirez from in-state, Lisa Lewis and Holm's archrival Stephanie Jaramillo (also from ABQ) and you've covered all but ONE of Holm's last three years of opponents (her last 13 fights). Is that such a shabby list for a fighter with only 17 pro fights?

Sure - we can all wait for Anani to appear on Holm's fight list. And we can speculate about what would happen if she did. But Holm was hardly alone in steering clear of Sumya during the time that Holm has been a contender.

Maybe we'd all like to see Holm fight Mary Jo Sanders, too - it would be good to see one or both of them leave home for a change - Mary Jo stays pretty close to Detroit.

But Holm's not exactly been fighting novices, either. I wonder how many people in this Forum gave Holm much of a chance when she signed on for the Martin fight, before they met in the ring?

Martin says there wasnt enough action in their fight, you say? Well, it's not like Christy wasn't there. Why didn't she try to make some? That was supposed to be Christy's forte, after all. The fact that she couldn't, and didn't, showed that Holly had a plan ... not for a slugfest, but for a boxing match. Martin couldn't knock her off that plan. That's Holm's fault? I don't see it like that.

And anyone remember how many years Martin herself dodged Rijker? Holm has a whole lot of dodging still to do before she would begin to reach that level of hiding from a dangerous opponent.

And if you don't think Angel Martinez was a fair rematch for Holm, well just look who Christy wants to fight next ... Angel Martinez.

It seems like J.R. has a major problem with female boxers who get to be popular in their own local market, who get favorable publicity from their local sports press. He's written the similar comments about Jessica Rakoczy, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Holly Holm and now Sharon Anyos.

But isn't this what good managers and promoters should try to do for their boxers, work towards getting them fights in their local market while they build up their reputations? Some are much better at it than others. Is that something that's only allowed for the Germans, like Halmich?

We all love and admire the Road Warriors, like Alicia Ashley, like Jane Couch, like Kelsey Jeffries, like Eliza Olson, like Sharon Anyos earlier in her career and like some of this forum's members - Terri Blair, Dee Hamaguchi, Stephanie Dobbs, Yvonne Reis - who will go anywhere to fight. And we'd all like to see neutrally and fairly judged fights all the time. But is it really as bad for the sport as J.R. makes out if a few female boxers are able to garner a following in their home town so they are not on the road all the time? Building up local markets for female boxing around local favorites ought to be part of the picture too, with commissions, manager alertness and pre-fight negotiations dealing with the fairness issues. Would it be so bad if more female pro boxers could pack the home crowds in and become local sports figures like Holm is now doing in Albuquerque?

Surely we need a mix - of markets where women's boxing is popular and crowds will turn out to see it - and of fighters willing to travel. It can't be all one or all the other. TV is where the money and big exposure are, but there have to be some venues where women's fights are a big deal too. How do we get those?

We'll all think a lot more of Holm if she can go to Vegas or Kansas City or Detroit and win without any help from "local" judges and referees. She will have to do that at some point to become credible as a champion. But Jane Couch said before this fight that she never heard of Holm until she (Holm) fought Martin. Getting Martin to Albuquerque - and then out-boxing her - was a good move for Holm, and one that I bet not many here would have given her much odds of succeeding at before they fought. Building on local success, becoming the Main Event draw for a region, how many of you would pass that up if you had the chance? How hard should we be on the boxers who, given that chance and having some skills, are using it?
This is a question I am asking for discussion, I am not saying I know the answer. And I know it's not a level playing field, not everyone gets the same chance and that is not fair, but can the sport grow without some places where fans become enthusiastic about a local fighter?

Winning on the road against top competition is the acid test for any boxer, and the hallmark of the true champion. Holm and Mrdjenovich haven't done that yet - and yes there are good reasons for concern about ongoing home town fighters and the effects of local judges ... but at least there are also good reasons why we know their names! They've already put more on the line than just their initials.

I have a “major problem” when a fighter, female or male, agrees to a contest at other’s local venues and who, paraphrasing Teddy Atlas, wins the bout but loses the decision to hometown officiating.

At the time of Holly Holm’s title fight with Christy Martin, Holm’s opponents had a record of 37-42-1 and only 4 of the 13 fighters had winning records. When Jelena Mrdjenovich won her first title, her opponents had a combined record of 69-110-14 and only 4 of the 14 fighters had winning records. And when Jessica Rakoczy lost her first title fight to Jenifer Alcorn, Rakoczy’s opponents had a combined record of 49-53-7 and 6 of the 13 fighters had winning records. All three of these fighters fought their first title bouts in their hometowns.

Using won-loss records is not the most accurate method to rate the strength of competition, but it is one of the few available until the hometown bias factor is incorporated into rating systems.

Women’s professional boxing is one or two scandals away from irreparable damage. The sport will not grow in its present form and many are to blame – promoters, managers, commissions, ringside physicians, sports writers, and bloggers. Women’s professional boxing is considered a sideshow attraction by much of the public and will not shake this image if local venues continue to exercise the power and authority they have assumed.

If the hometown crowds attend contests to watch how much damage will be inflicted on the visiting fighters (e.g., chants of “Kill Mia!” during the Holm-St. John fight) instead of to watch competitive bouts, they will eventually take their sports entertainment dollars elsewhere. And women’s professional boxing will die by failure to thrive.

[Dee Williams]

jr said:

Using won-loss records is not the most accurate method to rate the strength of competition, but it is one of the few available until the hometown bias factor is incorporated into rating systems.

Raw won-lost records are a very slippery guide. As well as containing the very home-bias factor you are concerned about, they ignore the key "strength of competition" factors. They particularly give no basis at all for rating "road warriors" who take lots of tough fights.

Example: after winning her second straight TKO over Sumya Anani, Terri Blair was 8-10-2. So she would have a "losing record" on your straight won-loss approach. But does anyone here think Terri Blair's a pushover because she still had a "losing record" after beating Anani twice?

I don't think so.

And she is one of the "losing record" fighters you tallied up while assessing Holm's opposition.

No boxer rating system that I am aware of plays this sort of numbers game with just the raw won-lost records. And with fighters like Blair in the mix, raw won-lost records can and do draw you to nonsense, or very misleading, conclusions

[Dee Williams]

By the way, I am not totally disagreeing with J.R., I just think he moved onto very shaky ground by using raw won-loss records to make his point (and I think he paints with too broad a brush with some of his criticisms).

Some boxers have very deceptive raw win-loss records in their favor. I have some common ground with J.R., for I do think Mrdjenovich is one of those. Despite her 18-1-0 (11 KO) record she's only #4 in her weight division in the WBAN rankings, which do assess opponent strength. #1 in Jelena's weight division is Eliza Olson, whose 10-5-3 record that looks worse on first sight ... but not after you consider strength of her opposition (which is why our WBAN rankings don't put them in order of won-lost).

Eliza is also Jelena's next opponent - the WBAN rankings say this will be the toughest test for Jelena to date. I doubt that anyone here would think that Olson will be the clear underdog going into that fight just because of her "inferior" win-loss record

No - the real point will be made if Olson "wins the fight but loses the decision" just because the fight is in Jelena's home town of Edmonton. We should worry if a home town fighter gets such favorable judging or refereeing that the fight result is affected, so a decision goes the wrong (unfair) way. I am not convinced that all the cases J.R. brings up (and he brings up lots of them, for certain fighters) fit that description.

[jr]

admin said:

jr said:

Using won-loss records is not the most accurate method to rate the strength of competition, but it is one of the few available until the hometown bias factor is incorporated into rating systems.

Raw won-lost records are a very slippery guide. As well as containing the very home-bias factor you are concerned about, they ignore the key "strength of competition" factors. They particularly give no basis at all for rating "road warriors" who take lots of tough fights.

Example: after winning her second straight TKO over Sumya Anani, Terri Blair was 8-10-2. So she would have a "losing record" on your straight won-loss approach. But does anyone here think Terri Blair's a pushover because she still had a "losing record" after beating Anani twice?

I don't think so.

And she is one of the "losing record" fighters you tallied up while assessing Holm's opposition.

No boxer rating system that I am aware of plays this sort of numbers game with just the raw won-lost records. And with fighters like Blair in the mix, raw won-lost records can and do draw you to nonsense, or very misleading, conclusions

The Terri Blair who lost to Holm in December 2004 is not the Terri Blair of today. By her own admission, she is now a much better fighter and her record to-date is proof. This is why I refer to her as the “new” Terri Blair. The won-lost totals I accrued did not include the success of the “new” Terri Blair but her record up to the point of the Holm contest.

Each venue listed applies a bias when scoring the bouts of its hometown fighter. “Raw” won-lost records do not reflect this bias but a modified rating system could.

Each venue would receive a hometown bias factor with a default of 1.0. For example, fighter X competes at hometown venue A which has a 20 percent bias factor. Fighter X defeats visiting fighter Y. The point score awarded to fighter X would be adjusted by the hometown bias factor so the point score would be 20 percent less than at a neutral venue.

The reverse holds true. If visiting fighter Y defeats hometown fighter X at venue A, fighter Y’s point score would be 1.2 times greater for her effort.

Decisions and stoppages would be scored identically. Although judges’ scores are not involved in most stoppages, the referees and ringside physicians can be influenced by hometown bias.

It’s not exact and it’s not a final solution, but it’s a starting point. Quantifying politics, emotion, prejudice, and avarice with arithmetic is a difficult task.

Determining and maintaining hometown bias factors would not be an easy task. Fight reports from the local press are part of the hometown bias as well.

To make the hometown bias factor sound less punitive, it could be called a Degree of Difficulty.

[jr]

admin said:

By the way, I am not totally disagreeing with J.R., I just think he moved onto very shaky ground by using raw won-loss records to make his point (and I think he paints with too broad a brush with some of his criticisms).

Some boxers have very deceptive raw win-loss records in their favor. I have some common ground with J.R., for I do think Mrdjenovich is one of those. Despite her 18-1-0 (11 KO) record she's only #4 in her weight division in the WBAN rankings, which do assess opponent strength. #1 in Jelena's weight division is Eliza Olson, whose 10-5-3 record that looks worse on first sight ... but not after you consider strength of her opposition (which is why our WBAN rankings don't put them in order of won-lost).

Eliza is also Jelena's next opponent - the WBAN rankings say this will be the toughest test for Jelena to date. I doubt that anyone here would think that Olson will be the clear underdog going into that fight just because of her "inferior" win-loss record

No - the real point will be made if Olson "wins the fight but loses the decision" just because the fight is in Jelena's home town of Edmonton. We should worry if a home town fighter gets such favorable judging or refereeing that the fight result is affected, so a decision goes the wrong (unfair) way. I am not convinced that all the cases J.R. brings up (and he brings up lots of them, for certain fighters) fit that description.

Based on the Edmonton scoring of the June 23rd Mrdjenovich-St. John contest and my own scoring of the fight, I have calculated a 30 percent hometown bias factor for contests involving Mrdjenovich.

Applying this factor to Mrdjenovich’s WBAN score of 3490 would result in an adjusted score of 2443…and the mostly self-serving commissions could not care less.

The November 4th Mrdjenovich-Olson contest will be watched carefully. Eliza Olson has been a victim of hometown judging before and Edmonton will need to be on its best behavior for this bout. I suspect Team Mrdjenovich is counting on Olson’s lack of stoppages and the Edmonton venue to give Mrdjenovich the decision. I also expect the Mrdjenovich support system to use some psychological warfare to disrupt Olson’s focus since she has some recent personal losses.

[Dee Williams]

jr said:

Each venue would receive a hometown bias factor with a default of 1.0. For example, fighter X competes at hometown venue A which has a 20 percent bias factor. Fighter X defeats visiting fighter Y. The point score awarded to fighter X would be adjusted by the hometown bias factor so the point score would be 20 percent less than at a neutral venue.

There are several points about this which are very sticky if you start to think abut how it work in practise.

Case in point: Isleta Casino, south of Albuquerque.

Would you apply a bias correction there just for Holm, or would you have applied the same correction for her arch-rival Jaramillo (who's from the South Valley, near Isleta)? And how would you get all the background political and geographic info for every fight, fighter and promoter to make that sort of distinction? Who'd decide who's "home" at which venues, and how? Does it go by geography, by who the judges are, who the promoter is? It's not just a "radius factor" in distance from the venue, some fighters can be "home" far away from home ...

It's also not valid in fact to apply a "correction" to the entire WBAN scores the way you suggested. Those scores already take into account (weight) the opponent record factors, fight by fight, so there's no one correction to apply after the fact.

The bottom line with Holm's ranking by WBAN (this stuff is explained on the web site, BTW) is there would only be a real problem with it if you think she actually LOST to Martin, who is now ranked right below her. That's what the Holm score comes down to because of the head to head comparison, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that yet. Not even Martin, who is still trying to make excuses for it (see her interview with Mary Ann Owen on BILV). Holm's fight with Mia doesn't even count in our rankings as they are not in the same weight class - and Mia would not be rated as a "difficult" opponent for Holly even if they were, based on who she (Mia) has won against.

I am using Holm as the example here because she was the topic in this thread when it started. We could just as easily be talking about Mary Jo Sanders always fighting near Detroit as Holm always fighting near Albuquerque. BTW, would you apply a home factor for Canada's Kara Ro in Detroit? Or for Texan Lisa Holewyne in Lincoln City, Oregon? Ask Marcel about that ...

[jr]

admin said:

jr said:

Each venue would receive a hometown bias factor with a default of 1.0. For example, fighter X competes at hometown venue A which has a 20 percent bias factor. Fighter X defeats visiting fighter Y. The point score awarded to fighter X would be adjusted by the hometown bias factor so the point score would be 20 percent less than at a neutral venue.

There are several points about this which are very sticky if you start to think abut how it work in practise.

Case in point: Isleta Casino, south of Albuquerque.

Would you apply a bias correction there just for Holm, or would you have applied the same correction for her arch-rival Jaramillo (who's from the South Valley, near Isleta)? And how would you get all the background political and geographic info for every fight, fighter and promoter to make that sort of distinction? Who'd decide who's "home" at which venues, and how? Does it go by geography, by who the judges are, who the promoter is? It's not just a "radius factor" in distance from the venue, some fighters can be "home" far away from home ...

It's also not valid in fact to apply a "correction" to the entire WBAN scores the way you suggested. Those scores already take into account (weight) the opponent record factors, fight by fight, so there's no one correction to apply after the fact.

The bottom line with Holm's ranking by WBAN (this stuff is explained on the web site, BTW) is there would only be a real problem with it if you think she actually LOST to Martin, who is now ranked right below her. That's what the Holm score comes down to because of the head to head comparison, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that yet. Not even Martin, who is still trying to make excuses for it (see her interview with Mary Ann Owen on BILV). Holm's fight with Mia doesn't even count in our rankings as they are not in the same weight class - and Mia would not be rated as a "difficult" opponent for Holly even if they were, based on who she (Mia) has won against.

I am using Holm as the example here because she was the topic in this thread when it started. We could just as easily be talking about Mary Jo Sanders always fighting near Detroit as Holm always fighting near Albuquerque. BTW, would you apply a home factor for Canada's Kara Ro in Detroit? Or for Texan Lisa Holewyne in Lincoln City, Oregon? Ask Marcel about that ...

There are several points about this which are very sticky if you start to think abut how it work in practise.

Case in point: Isleta Casino, south of Albuquerque.

Would you apply a bias correction there just for Holm, or would you have applied the same correction for her arch-rival Jaramillo (who's from the South Valley, near Isleta)? And how would you get all the background political and geographic info for every fight, fighter and promoter to make that sort of distinction? Who'd decide who's "home" at which venues, and how? Does it go by geography, by who the judges are, who the promoter is? It's not just a "radius factor" in distance from the venue, some fighters can be "home" far away from home ...

The promoter, with varying degrees of influence on the venue, is the primary factor in determining the hometown favorite. Holly Holm will always have the hometown advantage when Fresquez Productions promotes her matches. If New Mexico resident Stephanie Jaramillo fought Holm a third time, Holm would have a 25 percent bias factor (by my calculations) in the contest. Jaramillo is intelligent enough to avoid this contest.


It's also not valid in fact to apply a "correction" to the entire WBAN scores the way you suggested. Those scores already take into account (weight) the opponent record factors, fight by fight, so there's no one correction to apply after the fact.

I applied the bias factor to Jelena Mrdjenovich’s WBAN score only as an example. The factor would be applied to each contest individually and would not preclude the other rating factors. Mrdjenovich has fought only once at a hostile venue, so applying the hometown bias factor to all but one of her contests is proper.


The bottom line with Holm's ranking by WBAN (this stuff is explained on the web site, BTW) is there would only be a real problem with it if you think she actually LOST to Martin, who is now ranked right below her. That's what the Holm score comes down to because of the head to head comparison, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that yet. Not even Martin, who is still trying to make excuses for it (see her interview with Mary Ann Owen on BILV). Holm's fight with Mia doesn't even count in our rankings as they are not in the same weight class - and Mia would not be rated as a "difficult" opponent for Holly even if they were, based on who she (Mia) has won against.

I don’t believe Christy Martin defeated Holm. But I also believe it was a bout of little activity. Holm had a substantial lead when the bout started if my 25 percent factor is applied, hardly a level playing field. I do believe Angelica Martinez may have defeated Holm in their last meeting and the bias factor may have stolen the victory from Martinez.

I agree the Holm-St. John contest should not count in the WBAN rankings due to weight-class differences. Other ranking systems see this bout differently. But using the bias factor would adjust the opponent ratings of all competitors, regardless of weight class.


I am using Holm as the example here because she was the topic in this thread when it started. We could just as easily be talking about Mary Jo Sanders always fighting near Detroit as Holm always fighting near Albuquerque. BTW, would you apply a home factor for Canada's Kara Ro in Detroit? Or for Texan Lisa Holewyne in Lincoln City, Oregon? Ask Marcel about that ...

Again, the promoter is the primary factor in determining the hometown bias. So the bias factor favors Holm in Albuquerque, Mrdjenovich in Edmonton, Mary Jo Sanders in Detroit, Canadian Jessica Rakoczy in Lemoore, and Canadian Kara Ro in Detroit, among others.

A case in point is the recent second contest between native Canadian Jeannine Garside and transplanted Canadian Lisa Brown. In my opinion, Brown clearly defeated Garside. But Garside and Brown are both affiliated with Rock and Sock Productions, so the Edmonton judges provided a face-saving tie.


We can discuss this issue ad nauseam. But women’s professional boxing is not thriving beyond local venues and anything that can be done to promote contests between the best athletes will help the sport.

If the public believes bouts are guaranteed victories for local stars, the sport will not grow beyond the local level. And a high-profile contest stolen by hometown bias will stunt the growth of the sport even more.


Addendum:

www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/sep/27/richard-stevens-nm-knows-sham-sham/

Although I disagree with his disrespectful descriptions of veterans Martin, St. John, and Couch, Richard Stevens of the Albuquerque Tribune gives Holly Holm a 50 percent hometown bias factor.

[Dee Williams]

jr said:

I applied the bias factor to Jelena Mrdjenovich’s WBAN score only as an example. The factor would be applied to each contest individually and would not preclude the other rating factors.

It's still wrong, whether an example or not. Our ranking scores wouldn't work that way for anyone.

I also can't think of any model of biased judging or scoring that could produce a "constant factor" in any case. You either win a round or you don't. It's not like you can go from 10-9 to 10-9.9 with a 10 per cent factor. Are you suggesting that biased judges award a fixed number or fraction of rounds incorrectly? I don't understand the arithmetic model you have in mind. But the scoring model in the WBAN rankings is described on WBAN, so you can see why no fixed factor will ever be useful if you read the details there.

jr said:

The bottom line with Holm's ranking by WBAN (this stuff is explained on the web site, BTW) is there would only be a real problem with it if you think she actually LOST to Martin, who is now ranked right below her. That's what the Holm score comes down to because of the head to head comparison, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that yet. Not even Martin, who is still trying to make excuses for it (see her interview with Mary Ann Owen on BILV). Holm's fight with Mia doesn't even count in our rankings as they are not in the same weight class - and Mia would not be rated as a "difficult" opponent for Holly even if they were, based on who she (Mia) has won against.

I don’t believe Christy Martin defeated Holm. But I also believe it was a bout of little activity. Holm had a substantial lead when the bout started if my 25 percent factor is applied, hardly a level playing field.

The first part of your answer is what matters. If Holm defeated Martin, she will be ranked above her on our system while the fight is considered "current". That's the way our system works. The "lead she had when the bout started" may have been in Christy's head, or in Holly's better preparation for her, but it really doesn't matter WHY. It matters that the result was a certain result, that Holm won on points. if you agree with that result, you have to agree with their ranking relative to each other after the fight, as that's what it depends on.

jr said:

I do believe Angelica Martinez may have defeated Holm in their last meeting and the bias factor may have stolen the victory from Martinez.

That would indeed be relevant, if true. It will also be interesting now to see how Martinez fares against Martin.

jr said:

I agree the Holm-St. John contest should not count in the WBAN rankings due to weight-class differences. Other ranking systems see this bout differently. But using the bias factor would adjust the opponent ratings of all competitors, regardless of weight class.

Again, please read how our rankings work, then, as that isn't it. The other ranking systems may indeed "see this bout differently", but that's why we have multiple systems. That bout doesn't help Holm or hurt St.John in my system, it's irrelevant. I'll be happy to let any ranker that used it explain why he or she did so.

jr said:

Again, the promoter is the primary factor in determining the hometown bias.

So calling it "promoter bias" would make your point more clearly. My feeling is that the effect is probably "judging bias" (when the judges want to work for the promoter again or have some kind of relationship with them), and I do not think all judges in a bout will be affected equally. There's often one judge who comes up with a score that's very different from the others, and that's where I think this stuff starts to show through. Your idea that there is a "constant factor" to apply across the board to all fights under a give promoter simply does not fit my picture of what actually happens, which is that individual judges' scores of key rounds may get affected, or a ref may be encouraged to stop a fight un-necessarily (prematurely) in favor of a particular fighter.

Those things do not translate into simple (constant) arithmetic factors, I'd sooner apply some judgement calls about whether a particular result as a whole was affected by bias than do what you are suggesting - as that's what actually counts.

jr said:

But Garside and Brown are both affiliated with Rock and Sock Productions, so the Edmonton judges provided a face-saving tie.

Garside and Brown both live in Southern Ontario and the promoter has shown about the same interest in both of them, so I don't understand the point you are making here. Edmonton judging seems to me to be a red herring for those two, unlike perhaps for Mrdjenovich.

Again, there are some things to be concerned bout in amongst what you are saying, but I don't go along with your "across the board" statements or with the idea that there's a simple arithmetic "fix" to apply to correct for biased judging, at least not in my system, which is recent-result-oriented and weighted by opponent competition strength.

[Rick Scharmberg]

dayum...this thread really splits hairs.

[Dee Williams]

ricks said:

dayum...this thread really splits hairs.

Yes, and in another thread I am being told that I do not pay enough attention to the complexity of how home town effects work! LOL

I am actually trying to think of ways to make a more realistic "home correction" that could be done fairly AND across the board. And that involves some "hairy" details, strong coffee and a cold towel

My gut feeling is that rather than trying to tackle these issues by computing home scoring corrections as JR suggests (and as boxrec apparently actually tried with limited effect) it might be better to get at this from the other side, by giving extra credit for "away" wins, draws and close losses.

I don't really expect to achieve more fairness and correct the effects of actual home cooking by simple arithmetic fixes, in fact, because I dont see how to quantitaively overturn results. But you can reliably weight all "road wins" more highly than the same win at home, thus rewarding boxers who often overcome the obstacles to getting wins on the road. That would be amplifying clear positives rather than trying to diagnose and correct more arguable negatives, while still putting perpetual stay-at-homes at a disadvantage in a career scoring (rating/ranking) system.

I may try splitting some hairs on that side of the ledger to see what happens

[jr]

jr said:

len said:

Couch's best days are behind her and Holly isn't going to lose a decision in Alburquerque.

The promoter’s strategy is obvious. Lure boxing legends beyond their prime with significant purses, fight only in Albuquerque where the same referees and judges will apply hometown bias to scoring, and build up Holly Holm’s reputation.

The fight will probably end with a decision. Jane Couch is a seasoned veteran and knows how to compete with Holm. Holm, a martial arts tournament type fighter, pleases the hometown judges but lacks power. Couch has fought much harder punchers, fighters Team Holm wouldn’t dare challenge. Ask Team Holm if Myriam Lamare is a possible opponent.

The June 10th Holm-Martinez contest is a good indicator of the scoring expected for the Couch fight. All three judges scored the fight 98-92, but some members of the biased Albuquerque press believed Angel Martinez won four or five rounds. So expect lop-sided scoring for Holm again.

mwtraffic.ld.mediawave.co.uk/playout/playlist.asx?id=c6b15a587f44498695317beacb8566b6&type=1/couch_us_fight.wmv


I finally watched the Holm-Couch fight and scored the bout 98-97 for Holm.

The first two rounds were even. Neither fighter established dominance.

Couch won rounds three and four. Holm went down in the third round due to either a slip or push. In the fourth round, when Couch closed in on Holm, the referee separated the fighters. After the fourth round, Couch raised her hand to let the crowd know she was winning at that point in the bout.

Round five was also even. Holm would throw one punch and back up, her signature style. Couch landed a solid left to Holm’s head. After this punch, Holm spent the rest of the round backpedaling.

Holm won round six. Holm continued her lunge-punch technique but landed two left-hand punches to Couch’s head. Couch landed another strong left.

Round seven was even. Holm again landed left leads and Couch landed an equal number of lefts.

Holm won round eight. She landed two left leads and one right lead. This round was Holm’s best of the fight.

Holm won round nine, again with right-hand leads.

Round ten was even. Couch landed right hand leads and Holm landed one uppercut, the only one she landed the whole fight and was not “head-snapping” as reported. The punch did not phase Couch.


Most of Holm’s punches were blocked or slipped by Couch. And Holm’s body attack was ineffective due to her lack of power.

Team Couch is correct in criticizing the scoring of this bout.

[len]

Five even rounds? No boxing judge would score five even rounds! Although scoring is subjective, they MUST HAVE a reason to give those rounds to Holm even if the reason is shakey.

[Rick Scharmberg]

Hey JR, THANK YOU for the fight!