|
Post by TD on May 25, 2007 22:25:56 GMT -5
JR, you are right, its Vegas for these two babes. Which makes this a slam dunk for Mary Jo. Any fighter going to ALBQ. has to change their fight plan because of its a HOLM town.
Mary Jo Sanders is a total class act, a geourgous woman, a great athlete and a fantastic boxer. Nothing could be finer than to see her win this one in a walk over, in Vegas and on TV.
TD
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 25, 2007 22:44:06 GMT -5
Just to set the record straight, seeing as Initial-man has the Forum's "let no stone, however small, go unthrown" department in full swing again --- as was been pointed out here before, fights in Albuquerque proper (like at Tingley) are under the jurisdiction of a different boxing commission than those on the Indian Pueblo at Isleta, and NONE of the judges for Holm-Hallback was involved with Holm-Martin.
I agree that Holm-Sanders in Vegas would be good to sort them out, and I hope Mary Jo will come back down in weight to help that happen now that Laila Ali has told the media that she's bowing out, getting married, having her knees fixed, etc. I liked Mary Jo better as a welterweight. I also liked her coming to Albuquerque to try to steal some of Holly's limelight on ESPN2.
Neither Holly nor Mary Jo has a lot of power, but Mary Jo could be the best tactician and fastest hands Holly would ever face, and it would be interesting to see whether Mary Jo could finally make Holly trade for the better part of a whole round, and what would happen.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 25, 2007 22:54:48 GMT -5
"Slam dunk" outside of basketball is a term that should have made an exit with George Tenet. "It's a slam dunk, Mister President".
How about we put that cliche on the same scrap pile as "styles make fights"?
|
|
|
Post by jr on May 27, 2007 9:33:50 GMT -5
Just to set the record straight, seeing as Initial-man has the Forum's "let no stone, however small, go unthrown" department in full swing again --- as was been pointed out here before, fights in Albuquerque proper (like at Tingley) are under the jurisdiction of a different boxing commission than those on the Indian Pueblo at Isleta, and NONE of the judges for Holm-Hallback was involved with Holm-Martin. The Promoter’s Advantage is not geographically limited. Holly Holm could fight in Podunk, Iowa and if her promoter promotes the bout, the advantage is hers. The jurisdiction of the boxing commissions is secondary. How do you know that none of the judges for the Holm-Martin fight were involved in the Holm-Hallback bout? Boxrec does not list the judges’ names for Isleta events. And who sits on the Indian Pueblo at Isleta commission? The NMAC information is available but not the Isleta members.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 27, 2007 12:02:33 GMT -5
As J.R.'s thesis was based on local judge-buying, e.g. with "lobster dinners", which are indeed a rarity in the New Mexico desert, I did my homework for both bouts. For Holm-Martin the judges were Billy Burke, Chuck Giampa, and Fred Fluty. For Holm-Hallback they were Levi Martinez, Jesse Reyes, and Anita Aragon. Of course, every judge in New Mexico might be corruptable, but there were NO judges in common between the two bouts.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 27, 2007 12:30:17 GMT -5
By the way Chuck Giampa is from Las Vegas where he has been a boxing judge since 1984 and Fred Fluty is from Tampa, Florida. Only Billy "Rocky" Burke was from New Mexico (Las Cruces). Florida is Christy Martin's home state and Fred Fluty scored the bout 98-92 for Holm, the other two both saw it 100-90 for Holm. You have three judges to average out differences like that.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Scharmberg on May 28, 2007 9:09:43 GMT -5
Mary Jo Sanders seems to be a lot bigger than Holly Holm. Did you see them standing next to each other after Holm's fight?
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 28, 2007 10:06:42 GMT -5
Mary Jo is about an inch shorter than Holly but she's been fighting about 10 lbs heavier, working her way up to a possible match with Laila Ali. She started out as a junior welterweight and they could probably match at welterweight. The "Ali incentive" for Mary Jo to bulk up may be going away, at least for a while, if what Ali is telling the media holds up. Chevelle Hallback was the shortest opponent Holly had faced since Christy Martin, and the fight plan Holly's used against that size boxer won't work against Mary Jo who is bigger, uses the ring well and is very fast with her hands. Mary Jo throws a LOT of leather every round and would be able to run Holly down and MAKE her fight. It would be a real test of Holly's ability to fight back under extended pressure. On recent occasions when Holly's been hard pressed, e.g. the Saccurato fight, she's sometimes looked rattled and about to lose it - but then she's either punched, wrestled, or run her way out of trouble and been allowed to regroup. Against Mary Jo's punching accuracy and work rate, that'll be a LOT harder. Mary Jo has never actually knocked someone right out, she's TKO'd opponents early but she's not actually left anyone on the canvas. There's a first time for almost everything though I'd like to see the fight, but not in either Albuquerque or Detroit. For once. I agree with the Forum's initial-men - Vegas may be the best place for this one. Let's see who dares ...
|
|
|
Post by jr on May 28, 2007 14:09:09 GMT -5
Mary Jo is about an inch shorter than Holly but she's been fighting about 10 lbs heavier, working her way up to a possible match with Laila Ali. She started out as a junior welterweight and they could probably match at welterweight. The "Ali incentive" for Mary Jo to bulk up may be going away, at least for a while, if what Ali is telling the media holds up. Chevelle Hallback was the shortest opponent Holly had faced since Christy Martin, and the fight plan Holly's used against that size boxer won't work against Mary Jo who is bigger, uses the ring well and is very fast with her hands. Mary Jo throws a LOT of leather every round and would be able to run Holly down and MAKE her fight. It would be a real test of Holly's ability to fight back under extended pressure. On recent occasions when Holly's been hard pressed, e.g. the Saccurato fight, she's sometimes looked rattled and about to lose it - but then she's either punched, wrestled, or run her way out of trouble and been allowed to regroup. Against Mary Jo's punching accuracy and work rate, that'll be a LOT harder. Mary Jo has never actually knocked someone right out, she's TKO'd opponents early but she's not actually left anyone on the canvas. There's a first time for almost everything though I'd like to see the fight, but not in either Albuquerque or Detroit. For once. I agree with the Forum's initial-men - Vegas may be the best place for this one. Let's see who dares ... Since both fighters have competed at various weights, a fight-day weigh-in is warranted. Both Holm and Sanders rely heavily on local support. I don't see this contest happening in Las Vegas or at their respective home venues.
|
|
|
Post by TD on May 29, 2007 18:18:16 GMT -5
The Promoter’s Advantage is not geographically limited. Holly Holm could fight in Podunk, Iowa and if her promoter promotes the bout, the advantage is hers. The jurisdiction of the boxing commissions is secondary.
How do you know that none of the judges for the Holm-Martin fight were involved in the Holm-Hallback bout? Boxrec does not list the judges’ names for Isleta events. And who sits on the Indian Pueblo at Isleta commission? The NMAC information is available but not the Isleta members. [/quote]
JR...your problem communicating the "PROMOTERS ADVANTAGE" is you said PROMOTER. Don't be so clear and exact.
As we like to say at the Bribe'N'Dine, the Lobster doesn't care who eats it, it just wants to know whose paying for it.
For about 1/1000 of a second, I thought DEE was going earn a Detective Merit Badge. No dice.
TD
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 29, 2007 22:37:09 GMT -5
In my opinion, if you want to accuse people of taking bribes to fix boxing scores you should know who you are accusing - since when did information begin and end with boxrec? It's been implied that judges from New Mexico, Nevada and Florida were all persuaded to score Holm-Martin unfairly, and this by someone whose own posts show he didn't know WHO he was talking about (nor, apparently, did he look very far to find out).
If you believe that statistics (quoted but never revealed) are enough to show that real people are taking bribes to bias their views of fights, you might ask yourself why "J.R." has questioned results for so many boxers who recently defeated Mia St. John - Jessica Rakoczy, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Holly Holm, and most recently Brooke Dierdorff. The ONLY thing those four have in common is that they won fights with Mia, who may also be the ONLY other person in the world beside J.R. who thought Jackie Chavez was robbed of a decision against Lisa Brown on the AROTO card at Isleta.
Go figure. It MAY take more than a 1/1000 sec attention span to do that, but if you do, then you can meet me at the Bribe'N'Dine and buy ME a lobster dinner. (In fact the closest Bribe'N'Dine to Isleta is better known for its green chili cheeseburgers).
|
|
|
Post by TD on May 30, 2007 0:21:34 GMT -5
Dee.. IF JR was accusing someone of giving and taking bribes, there would have been either a slander suit or an FBI agent asking YOU who JR is.
Its far more subtle, insidious and harder to pin down. Just because of who YOU are I will take it down to simpler level...a promoter would never be so dim as to say top a judge, "i buy you dinner, you score in my girl's favor"...camon...go back to the scoring of Holyfield VS. Lewis, where Evander was given a draw...it was outrageous scoring. One judge actually scored a pivotal round for Evander where he was outpunched and outlanded by almost 2 to 1! Where bribes given? No. How did that happen?
We have heard the stories of how cozy some promoters are with some judges. Teddy Atlas has spoken about it. Mia has addressed it in her negotiations. I've had a promoters stooge say certain things to me about a certain fighter and their prospects in certain geographies...its all very subtle but the gist is, YOU PLAY BALL WITH ME AND YOU GET THE BALL ALOT MORE OFTEN...AND ITS A PROGRESSIVELY NICER BALL. IF ANYONE HEARS OF THIS, THERE WILL NO BALL FOR YOU EVER AGAIN.
So is JR's Promoters Advantage valid in terms of scoring outcomes? Hell yes. You can bank on it as a sure wagering scheme.
Is anybody accusing anyone of bribing someone else? Never.
But how do you account for the bias in scoring in some cities for some fighters managed by certain promoters while your eyes tell you something different?
Sometimes its the difference in prejudice and preference...a judge isn't paid/bribed/ or induced to be prejudiced, they are seduced to prefer the punch count or the power of a certain fighter during a nice friendly outing at a brothel/ diner/ car dealer/hotel/ clothing store/real estate company ( pick one).
Don't confuse promoting and judging a fight with being a congressman-er, actually, they're twins sons from different mothers.
TD
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 30, 2007 0:55:49 GMT -5
JR...your problem communicating the "PROMOTERS ADVANTAGE" is you said PROMOTER. Don't be so clear and exact. No, being exact would CREATE a problem - as the scores are provided by the JUDGES. J.R. is imputing - from some statistics he's done but never shown us - that JUDGES from all over the country are persuaded to score - not just a little here and there but consistently and massively - in favor of promoter's fighters. We may suspect something, but let's indeed be clear and exact - WHO is involved, if this is real? J.R. specifically questioned the wide margin that Holm got over Martin, while we were discussing the margin she also got over Hallback. So I figured I'd dig a bit to see who, if anyone, the two sets of judges had in common. (And I was surprised to learn that J.R. apparently didn't know how to check that, as it's information that COULD bolster his case.) I'd have been intrigued if the high-scoring (for Holm) judges were the same, for example, even though appointed by different commissions. Or if the Martin fight panel at Isleta had been loaded with New Mexicans who rarely judged fights outside the state. But that's not what I found.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 30, 2007 1:00:52 GMT -5
As we like to say at the Bribe'N'Dine, the Lobster doesn't care who eats it, it just wants to know whose paying for it. Is anybody accusing anyone of bribing someone else? Never. Please come back when you've figured out your argument.
|
|
|
Post by TD on May 30, 2007 12:57:02 GMT -5
As we like to say at the Bribe'N'Dine, the Lobster doesn't care who eats it, it just wants to know whose paying for it. Is anybody accusing anyone of bribing someone else? Never. Please come back when you've figured out your argument. Dee, you are very smart. And nice. You read real good. And you know all the big words. Maybe that is why I like you so darn much! Smile! I know you know the difference between prejudice and preference. For instance, you are prejudiced against me. I like that very much. While I prefer not to ever talk with you but unfortunately you make me smile so much, I just have to communicate with you. Smile again. So have a nice day! And if you like, that '65 ruffed out Broomstick parked out back, she's all yours if you just promise to read slower and think more. Much Love! TD
|
|
|
Post by jr on May 30, 2007 17:09:38 GMT -5
In my opinion, if you want to accuse people of taking bribes to fix boxing scores you should know who you are accusing - since when did information begin and end with boxrec? It's been implied that judges from New Mexico, Nevada and Florida were all persuaded to score Holm-Martin unfairly, and this by someone whose own posts show he didn't know WHO he was talking about (nor, apparently, did he look very far to find out). If you believe that statistics (quoted but never revealed) are enough to show that real people are taking bribes to bias their views of fights, you might ask yourself why "J.R." has questioned results for so many boxers who recently defeated Mia St. John - Jessica Rakoczy, Jelena Mrdjenovich, Holly Holm, and most recently Brooke Dierdorff. The ONLY thing those four have in common is that they won fights with Mia, who may also be the ONLY other person in the world beside J.R. who thought Jackie Chavez was robbed of a decision against Lisa Brown on the AROTO card at Isleta. Go figure. It MAY take more than a 1/1000 sec attention span to do that, but if you do, then you can meet me at the Bribe'N'Dine and buy ME a lobster dinner. (In fact the closest Bribe'N'Dine to Isleta is better known for its green chili cheeseburgers). First, setting the record straight, I never used the word “bribery” or accused anyone of the act. Those are your words, not mine. Second, the “lobster dinner” reference is from a Teddy Atlas interview and I use it as a euphemism for the relationship between promoters and fight officials. Third, I have questioned the scoring of contests with no connection to Mia St. John (e.g. Sanders-Olsen). Read my previous posts. Fourth, St. John is an indicator of the state of judging in women’s boxing. Since 2005, St. John has fought some of the top boxers in their hometowns, fighters afraid to leave their home venues and face questionable judging, the point of this posting. In these contests, St. John did not receive credit for rounds won and had one victory stolen from her. Fifth, I am not alone in my concern about judging: “Chevelle is a good fighter but I don’t think she can beat Holly Holm with the judges in Albuquerque,” said McCarter, one of the top female fighters today. “Holly Holm does what she needs to do to win in her town.” Layla McCarter www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/5118/super-fighters-chevelle-hallback-liz-quevedo-action/
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on May 30, 2007 23:59:31 GMT -5
I never used the word “bribery” or accused anyone of the act. Those are your words, not mine. Right. I said that because you said Holly Holm has a 100 percent Promoter's Advantage. Ms. Hallback will need a KO to win over Holm. Fresquez Productions still picks the officials, so the judging is the same as at the Isleta Casino. This wouldn't be the first time Holly Holm's opponents have been robbed. But one thing we can count on is Albuquerque scoring for Holm. The inflated scoring for Holm is an established pattern. I wouldn't be concerned about Mary Jo Sanders adapting to thin air as much as Holly Holm getting big scores in Albuquerque while avoiding contact like she did with Christy Martin. I think a Las Vegas venue, co-promoted by Holm's and Sander's promoters, and judges and referee paid equally by the two promoters would lend some objectivity to the officiating of the bout. And no lobster dinners before the fight. No, you only said that Holm has 100% "promoter's advantage", then said that Fresquez "picked" the officials (not true, the commissions do) then you talked about "Albuquerque scoring", "inflated scoring", etc. etc., That was quite a dance if you really DIDN'T mean to imply that the judges in Albuquerque (no matter whether they come from NM, NV, or FL) end up giving inflated scores for Holm. You also suggested that "lobster dinners before the fight" might be involved. Wow, J.R., maybe you are just much better at the euphemism game than I am, but what exactly DID you mean? I thought for some reason you were saying that the "Albuquerque" judges were loading up the points for Fresquez' boxer. producing her "100% advantage" in return for some "lobster dinners"? You laid the dots so close there I thought from my distance that they were actually connected! But maybe that was all just me and my imagination ... and you don't actually mean anything at all by all this
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jun 1, 2007 16:27:38 GMT -5
Some of what's being said, or denied, here may depend on how people read the word "bribe". I think the LEGAL definition may be narrower than the general English definition. I am not a lawyer but I think several Forum members are, so I'll let them chime in on that if they want to, but there's a definition close to how I use the word at www.m-w.com/dictionary/bribe(Merriam-Webster dictionary) 1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust 2 : something that serves to induce or influence i.e. doesn't have to be "cash now", future favors promised are "bribes" too. Seems to me this IS what JR and TD were talking about, even if it's not the "cash-on-the-barrel", "call the FBI" sort. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming ...
|
|