|
Post by Ryan Wissow on Jan 10, 2009 14:21:55 GMT -5
hey everybody, i have just been contacted by the promoter in Bosnia. they agreed to promote an immediate rematch with Adler vs Jeannine Garside, but Garside's team refuse to rematch her in Bosnia. so instead i know have the Bosnians agreed to have Adler make the first defence of her WIBA Featherweight World Title against WIBA #2 rated Sandy Tsagouris, in Sarajevo in June or July. this should be a good fight! RYAN
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2009 18:21:51 GMT -5
I hope Tsagouris wins this and then Garside-Tsagouris can happen for this belt in Ontario, which would be the best all-Canadian pro female matchup possible!
|
|
|
Post by voayer on Jan 10, 2009 23:57:49 GMT -5
I hope Tsagouris wins this ... You probably meant to say that you hope Tsagouris will KO Irma. Otherwise is no way that Sandy will win in Sarajevo. This is Balkan for god's sake.
|
|
|
Post by voayer on Jan 11, 2009 0:05:30 GMT -5
You probably meant to say that you hope Tsagouris will KO Irma. And even then i wouldn't be 100% sure....lol
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2009 1:44:13 GMT -5
Bosnians agreed to have Adler make the first defence of her WIBA Featherweight World Title That title is the item I meant by her "winning", i.e. so the title could then be fought for in Canada, where Garside would probably be very happy to fight Tsagouris. I think the judging of women's pro boxing events in Canada has generally been very fair, probably fairer than most places, but apart from Mrdjenovich the top Canadian female boxers do not often get the chance to fight in their own country, and especially not for titles. If Tsagouris could get this WIBA belt back to Canada from the Bosnian toilet in which it now resides, then the future competition for it could be ... uhh ... cleaned up. I have not heard that ANYBODY thought Adler deserved to win that title, including, it seems, Adler herself, apart from the two judges who gave it to her.
|
|
|
Post by Allan Garside on Jan 11, 2009 3:51:10 GMT -5
Dee
ranking..... does it mater weather its a title fight or not to alter the rankings. exatly what is it that dictates ranking. I mentioned to Jeannine that hey thats boxing. but she stopped me short and said "No" she loves boxing and dosn't want it to be thought of like that.
to the best of my knowledge Jeannine was never offered an emideate rematch in Bosnia.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2009 13:21:58 GMT -5
does it mater weather its a title fight or not to alter the rankings. exatly what is it that dictates ranking. Allan - in my ranking system it's primarily which well-ranked opponents you've defeated, drawn with, or narrowly lost to in your own weight division recently. Its ranking is a bootstrap process, you get ranked high by doing well recently against ranked opponents - that's why the program makes many passes through the result database to calculate opponent strength - it has to "learn" how it should rate each opponent and thus rank each fight. It makes its own assessment of which fights are difficult fights and does not use information about whether the fight was CALLED a title fight in order to do that. Of course if title fights were ALWAYS between top opponents, then these would be similar things, but there are some bad matchups in some title fights so the program uses its own strength ratings to assess how to rate each fight, regardless of "title" status of the fight My interest in seeing Sandy vs Jeannine as a title fight has nothing directly to do with my rankings, it's just that I see two good fighters who are training not far from each other in a part of the world that's got a number of great female boxers who mostly have to go elsewhere to fight. Titles help to hype promotions and I would like to see two deserving fighters like Sandy and Jeannine both get the chance to show their stuff for a world title "at home" for a change. I'd also like to see some justice that WIBA was unable to provide - so I'd like to see Adler actually lose a belt that she didn't really win, so that Sandy could take it to Canada and defend it there. I also think that would set up a promotional opportunity in Canada for her to fight Jeannine if some promoter there would step up to the plate for a title bout. You've produced so many good female boxers up there who deserve more recognition at home, and I would like to see that happen. My stats show that the decline in US women's boxing opportunities is getting very severe now, we are back to 1997 levels of activity in the pro sport: www.womenboxingrecords.com/results/quarterly_usa.htm so it's probably getting much harder for you guys to get fights down here to stay active now. Women's pro boxing is growing in Western Europe, South America. and Asia, but rapidly declining in the USA. I hope Canada does not get "frozen out" in this process, as your boxers deserve much better.
|
|
|
Post by Allan Garside on Jan 11, 2009 16:08:07 GMT -5
Thanks for trying to explain all this to me. I am having a hard time piecing it all together. Jeannine fighting Sandy for a title in Canada would be wonderfull.... however, that opportunity has always been been there for them when Jeannine held the title. If Sandy wins this belt and brings it back to our country, would she risk defending it against Jeannine? I would like to think so. Now, even If Sandy should lose, there is still the opportunity for her promoter to have a fight between these two. I'm sure it would be a big draw for him and Sandy does hold a Canadian title should they want to defend it. It would be a good fight and I agree that the judges over here are quite fair. and thats really all any fighter can ask for, fair judging. I felt it was great of the Bosnians to step up to the plate and have a shot a Jeannine's title. I take my hat off to them for that. Now if Jeannine should lose then so be it. But not like this. two things happened in this fight. One was an unfair Judging. the other was the WIBA. I think they had a chance to stand up for womens boxing and their own title. Not to favor any one fighter but to stand up for their own namesake. I think they dropped the ball.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2009 20:02:22 GMT -5
Allan, I agree that it was a missed opportunity for Jeannine not to have fought Sandy while Jeannine had the title, but I don't know who missed it - I was just looking ahead. Sanctioning bodies could help the sport by insisting on all judges and referees being of "neutral" origin for their titles fights, but that seems to be the exception not the norm. They have a conflicting interest of trying to maximize their annual "take" by maximizing the number of fights that they sanction, and they will put their "business interests" first when the chips are down. Hoeevr, the time for that argument is before the fight, before the contract has been signed, not after a bad decision has been rendered. It's more practical to insist on fairness before a fight, in the composition of the officials, than to expect a sanctioning body not to accept a decision once it has been rendered. Whether a given sanctioning body is in cahoots with promoters, or is interested in fairness to the boxers over lining their own pockets, probably varies a lot. The WIBA did not distinguish itself in this case, but it did what many do, for what that's worth. (e.g. www.womenboxing.com/NEWS20082/news122208wissow.htm)This WIBA title is now in the toilet whatever one believes about the reasons for that, as nobody outside Bosnia believes that Adler deserves it. Perhaps the bad smell associated with this case will encourage Ryan to ask for neutral officiating next time, but it's hard to turn the clock back. I just think the best outcome here would be for Tsagouris to win the belt (as voayer said she may need to knock Adler out to do that) and for the WIBA (and the rest of us) to breathe a sigh of relief and try to make something better happen further down the road. It's my opinion that the ball was dropped BEFORE the fight, as it's pretty much impossible (legally and for other reasons) to undrop it afterwards. But it would help women's for ALL of the sanctioning bodies to try to set better standards for officiating at their title fights, by requiring all-neutral judging (not just 2 of 3). Otherwise the bodies end up taking a Pontius Pilate view of gaming the system (leaving it to the locals) while they collect their fees, which does not much help the sport or the fighters (it just helps them stay in business, as Ryan pointed out). I do hope Sandy and Jeannine will meet in the ring anyway, and of course that could happen anyway. But in my opinion it's a match that deserves a title slot. I hope someone up there (Canada) can make it happen anyway, and with a reputable sanctioning body. Dee
|
|
|
Post by Allan Garside on Jan 11, 2009 21:07:26 GMT -5
Dee I understand the risk of fighting abroad to apoint. We did asume proper judjes had been choosen by Ryan. Besides Jeannine is a fighter who wants to fight. But are you suggesting that its her falt for taking the fight. would it be better to be stripped for turnning down an offer. what would her ranking have been then? probobly better but she wants to fight damb it.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2009 21:37:49 GMT -5
Allan - I never blame the boxers, who usually just want to fight and prove themselves. The problem's not there. We did asume proper judjes had been choosen by Ryan. Why did you assume that? Don't.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Wissow on Jan 12, 2009 13:05:54 GMT -5
Dee, real nice how you make assumptions on a fight that you and everyone else did not see. until you watch this fight on video, you are in no position to speculate on anything.
"I have not heard that ANYBODY thought Adler deserved to win that title, including, it seems, Adler herself, apart from the two judges who gave it to her."
have any of those people actually witnessed the fight? no.
"to the best of my knowledge Jeannine was never offered an emideate rematch in Bosnia. i offered Jackie Kallan an immediate rematch, she said no, adding that the only way she would rematch Adler in Bosnia was if i stripped Adler and gave the title back to Garside. "This WIBA title is now in the toilet whatever one believes about the reasons for that, as nobody outside Bosnia believes that Adler deserves it. Perhaps the bad smell associated with this case will encourage Ryan to ask for neutral officiating next time, but it's hard to turn the clock back."
i had neutral judges and they rendered a decision that i did not agree with. so i ordered an immediate rematch and Garside's people turned it down in Bosnia. there are no other promoters with concrete offers to do this fight anywhere else. ALL sanctioning bodies have bad decisions at one time or another, but for Dee and others to use that to try to bring down the good name of the WIBA is truly a 'cheap shot' based on a fight in Bosnia that none of them had actually witnessed themselves. Dee has always been a 'hater' of the WIBA, for reasons only known to her. RYAN
|
|
|
Post by Allan Garside on Jan 12, 2009 14:21:36 GMT -5
Ryan... what about these neutral judjes you chose that Jeannine entrusted you in?
would you be so kind as to have the chosen names included on Sandy's contract
And would you be so kind as to not allow a last minute judge change by the Bosnians.
And if you do allow it would you be so kind as to inform them of such a change before the fight is over.
and would you be so kind as to give her a copy of the fight between Jeannine and Erma. I'm sure the Bosnians have one of Sandy vs Menzer. and if they don't how about giving them one.
Allan
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 12, 2009 17:58:58 GMT -5
Real nice how you make assumptions on a fight that you and everyone else did not see. Let's see - is Ryan now claiming there were NO witnesses to the Garside fight, that it was fought in front of just him and the judges in a back room. nobody else saw it? What about the Bosnians who came to Garside after the fight and told her she was still the champion in their eyes? Were they outside the hall, or hallucinating? In any case Ryan is in record as saying that the decision was wrong. Addressing Jackie Kallen in his letter to WBAN www.womenboxing.com/NEWS20082/news122208wissow.htmRyan stated: "Also, you would not have known about the scoring had I not told Jeannine about this after the fight. The judges have the discretion to score rounds how they see fit. With that said, I did NOT agree with their scoring. it was clearly a 10-8 round, but a judge chose to score it 10-9 because Adler was winning the round up until the knockdown. I didn't agree with that call, but its their discretion."and later in the same letter: "I agree that this was a bad decision, but if I took it upon myself to not recognize every decision that I don't agree with, I would be sued and put out of business like the WBC almost was. Again, I will not put myself or my company in jeopardy over a bad decision."Unless Ryan mis-stated his own view of the fight, this WAS a bad decision to which Ryan's response is an essentially business issue. Even Adler told the press that she was surprised she got the decision. I am sure she was there, by the way. Has anyone here ever heard a boxer say that when she actually thought she won? When is video of the fight going to be available, Ryan? Do you believe this decision will stand up to the worldwide scrutiny that would come by posting the whole fight on YouTube? Until then, it might be useful to say which rounds YOU think Adler won, and likewise for Garside. Also, who appointed the two judges who scored the fight for Adler, and when? I have heard different versions of this. Ryan says he does not want to "put himself or his company in jeopardy over a bad decision", but as it evidently WAS a bad decision - by his own admission - there are other issues here. Is willingness to grant a rematch under the exact same circumstances (which nobody in their right mind would accept, IMHO) enough to get everyone (except Jeannine) off the hook here? What do Forum readers think? It would be nice to see a sanctioning body in women's boxing with with something other than just a "gimme your money for my belt and shut up about everything else" attitude. Anyone here know one? Dee
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 13, 2009 2:24:56 GMT -5
If Sandy Tsagouris is going to get the same deal in Bosnia it may be worth making it as clear as possible what Garside's deal was. Ryan stated here that he "had neutral judges" but that is not saying ALL neutral judges. Mirsad Husic had only ever worked as a judge in Bosnia so far as I can determine, and has been a judge in four of nine Adler fights. The one clearly neutral judge IMO was Ernst E. Salzberger of Austria, a well known EBU judge and referee and he is the one who scored the fight 98-92 for Garside. The other was Croatian and had also previously judged an Adler fight, in Croatia. That judge cast the swing score in favor of Adler It's my opinion that the ball was dropped BEFORE the fight, as it's pretty much impossible (legally and for other reasons) to undrop it afterwards. But it would help women's for ALL of the sanctioning bodies to try to set better standards for officiating at their title fights, by requiring all-neutral judging (not just 2 of 3). Otherwise the bodies end up taking a Pontius Pilate view of gaming the system (leaving it to the locals) while they collect their fees, which does not much help the sport or the fighters (it just helps them stay in business, as Ryan pointed out). Is it bad form to hope that "neutral judges" really means neutral? Is it bad form to wonder what Tsagouris will be told about neutral judges and what will then happen? Maybe she can KO Adler but is it bad form to wonder if she'll HAVE to do that in order to get this belt out of Bosnia?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Scharmberg on Jan 13, 2009 9:47:46 GMT -5
Bad decisions run rampant in Europe, not only for women, but for men as well. I followed this scenario involving the IBF super middleweight belt. Karoly Balszay was the "man who would be champ", the chosen one. He was to fight Denis Inkin for the vacant crown, but sufferred a training injury. Enter Colombian tough-guy Fulgencio Zuniga, who, according to my scoring, won 8 of 12 rounds as a fill-in against Denis Inkin. Inkin admitted in a subsequent interview to knowing the scores during the fight, and fought like he knew he was ahead in the last 4 rounds. Not only that, one judge, who, incidently, was the father of the referee, only gave Zuniga two rounds total when it was clear that Zuniga clearly won 4 of the last five rounds. Inkin acted like he was the rightful winner after the fight. Next, he defended against Karoly Balszay, who won a close decision over Inkin last weekend. Now Inkin is crying foul. They should have just handed Balszay the title in the first place.
I guess the point I am trying to make is, it looks like Ryan Wissow is the "fall guy" here. He wasn't part of any conspiracy to take the title away, but his position leaves him in a tough spot where he has to answer for the (mis)deeds of others.
The money is overseas, and with it comes a price, unfortunately. THAT is the real issue here.
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 13, 2009 12:24:30 GMT -5
hey everybody, i have just been contacted by the promoter in Bosnia. they agreed to promote an immediate rematch with Adler vs Jeannine Garside, but Garside's team refuse to rematch her in Bosnia. so instead i know have the Bosnians agreed to have Adler make the first defence of her WIBA Featherweight World Title against WIBA #2 rated Sandy Tsagouris, in Sarajevo in June or July. this should be a good fight! RYAN Ryan, I don't doubt your honor and I can understand why you are ticked. Its like you become the nearest punching bag. Keep sanctioning great fights, keep bringing great fighters together. TD
|
|
|
Post by Allan Garside on Jan 13, 2009 13:56:59 GMT -5
Tom this thing keeps rolling around in my head and I felt I should say something but I see you have already touched on it.
I said fair judging is all a fighter can hope for. but I forgot something. the opportunity to get in the ring with an opponent first. Ryan was able to do that and I thank him for that Dee is probably correct in that we dropped the ball for not having things in writing. If things where in writing then I guess Ryan would have had a better leg to stand on when they demanded a judging change. There seems to be a gray area of confusion as to weather Jeannine turned down an immediate rematch in Bosnia. Jeannine would not have turned that down. I wish Sandy the best of luck and learn from our mistakes. If there is anything she would like to discuss with Jeannine, she can Email her at jgarside1ATcogeco.ca Allan
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 13, 2009 15:48:03 GMT -5
I think Allan's summary is fair, and also the only place the judging issue for title fights can be addressed is BEFORE the fights, when the sanctioning bodies set up judging choice parameters with local governing bodies. If the sanctioning bodies would in fact INSIST on three neutral judges each time, the difficulties we have with questionable judging could be minimized. The sanctioning bodies have some leverage - which they could use to address the fairness issues if they tried. Once the results are in the record books, we all have to live with them. So the best way to deal with unfair results is to try to head them off by making it harder for promoters to stack the judging deck anywhere that's flagrantly happening. We can all have our different views of what was and was not a fair result, but requiring three neutral, competent judges at each title fight would go some way to heading off these problems BEFORE they happen. IMO, that''s the only durable solution, but it needs the sanctioners to step up to the plate and make it part of their agenda to ensure that it happens, not just HOPE it happens. Rick is absolutely right that N.American fighters will increasingly have to be the road warriors because the US fight base for women is declining rapidly. Again, please look at www.womenboxingrecords.com/results/quarterly_usa.htmto see how bad it's getting. We are down to levels not seen since 1996 in the USA - the "boom" in women's boxing here is completely bust at the moment. This may be why new openings like Bosnia now look attractive.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 13, 2009 15:57:03 GMT -5
I guess the point I am trying to make is, it looks like Ryan Wissow is the "fall guy" here. He wasn't part of any conspiracy to take the title away, but his position leaves him in a tough spot where he has to answer for the (mis)deeds of others. Yes it may be a tad hard on Ryan that he gets the criticism because the "worst ripoff of the year" happened on his watch, and I am not suggesting in any way that he TRIED to shaft Jeannine, But I do think he ended up with some responsibility for the fact that she DID get shafted because the WIBA did not enforce a "three neutral judges" requirement. What we can maybe all agree on is that it would be a win-win for everyone if he can prevent the next one (Sandy) from being shafted the exact same way by the same people in the same place. His title belt now sits in Sarajevo, and as he comes to this Forum we have an opening to raise issues up front with him that we do not have with the other bodies, who can keep this stuff hidden in their back rooms. Although he may not enjoy the process we are going through here, I will consider it a win for us all IF it contributes to the next WIBA Featherweight title bout in Bosnia being judged more fairly and honestly than the last one was. Getting "good" results in the record books through neutral, honest judging is the direction we need to go in to make the sport fairer. I agree that you can't try to fix thefts AFTER they have happened, but Ryan is in a special position to work to PREVENT them for "his" title fights. I just hope he does, as I am sure we will now all be watching the Adler-Tsagouris situation with extra interest.
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 13, 2009 16:02:38 GMT -5
" I said fair judging is all a fighter can hope for. but I forgot something. the opportunity to get in the ring with an opponent first."
Fighters fight for GLORY and MONEY and then PRIDE. Every fighter always assumes judging will be fair. A sanctioning body cannot override a "local boxing commission" in selection of judges. It can advise and then consent to sanction based on selected judges.
In major title fights, the judges are always a point of negotiation-discussion and or removal from a fight.
In any other title fight, nobody really has any clout.
I think a judging selection should be part of the contract and a judges record should be public knowledge.
Everybody has come to feel that the local commission is far enough away from the promoter but I think that is flawed logic. The promoter's arms reach thru the commission as the promoter is the commission's source of revenue.
So what can a sanctioning body do to insure a fair outcome?
Punch-stat. When punch-stat is tabbing throws and connects, its much harder for a judge to hide behind a dubious outcome. Put up punch stats between rounds. Let the audience see who has worked more and who had landed more. A judge has a rough time hiding his/her scum-bag work in the light of factual knowledge. IMO.
Of course, quality of the landed shot is a subjective area where judges can still play their games.
Oh yeah, cleaning up the dumb rating systems that ingest all those bad decisions...how about that. Everyone complains about BAD decisions, then Dee puts them into ratings!?!?!?!?!
Ryan can prevent that from polluting his ratings.
TD
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 13, 2009 16:13:33 GMT -5
A sanctioning body cannot override a "local boxing commission" in selection of judges. It can advise and then consent to sanction based on selected judges. Uhh - yes, It's the "consent' part of that which this is all about.
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 13, 2009 20:41:02 GMT -5
A sanctioning body cannot override a "local boxing commission" in selection of judges. It can advise and then consent to sanction based on selected judges. Uhh - yes, It's the "consent' part of that which this is all about. "Uhh" to you too. What, you think Ryan allowed bad judges to judge a fight he sanctioned? Well, is that what YOU are saying? Hey, why don't you go back and pull out all of the screwed up RATINGS you have ingested from all of the fights you object to, all of the fights I object too and all of the fights that the rest of the world knows where BAD decisions. UHH? Your ratings are nothing more than a reflection of all those crooked, bought off, homer, slanted, prejudiced decisions. And some real ones too. But NOT enough. TD
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 13, 2009 22:06:59 GMT -5
Uhh - yes, It's the "consent' part of that which this is all about. "Uhh" to you too. What, you think Ryan allowed bad judges to judge a fight he sanctioned? Well, is that what YOU are saying? No, I am saying what I said - not what YOU said. You play the game all the time of either not reading what people say, or substituting your words for theirs and then attacking your replacement words. I am saying that it's the "consent" part that is crucial, "advise" is not enough. "Advising" that there should be all-neutral judges is not the same as REQUIRING that there should be all-neutral judges. The key step would be for the sanctioning body to ask for the judges to be named and CONSENT to the sanctioning only if the named judges are all neutral by the standards of the sanctioning body - which should be clearly stated somewhere public (I suggest they would NOT include having a judge from one of the participant's home countries but not from the other's). ADVICE can be given and not be binding but CONSENT can be withheld. That's the key.
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 14, 2009 14:53:50 GMT -5
"Uhh" to you too. What, you think Ryan allowed bad judges to judge a fight he sanctioned? Well, is that what YOU are saying? No, I am saying what I said - not what YOU said. You play the game all the time of either not reading what people say, or substituting your words for theirs and then attacking your replacement words. I am saying that it's the "consent" part that is crucial, "advise" is not enough. "Advising" that there should be all-neutral judges is not the same as REQUIRING that there should be all-neutral judges. The key step would be for the sanctioning body to ask for the judges to be named and CONSENT to the sanctioning only if the named judges are all neutral by the standards of the sanctioning body - which should be clearly stated somewhere public (I suggest they would NOT include having a judge from one of the participant's home countries but not from the other's). ADVICE can be given and not be binding but CONSENT can be withheld. That's the key. SO SLICK DEE, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING REGARDING RYAN'S "CONSENT" OVER JUDGES FOR THE CONTROVERSIAL FIGHT? TD Note - to make it clear who said what, I have closed the quote block on Tom De Napoli's post - everything else is exactly as he posted - Dee
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 14, 2009 16:55:09 GMT -5
SO SLICK DEE, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING REGARDING RYAN'S "CONSENT" OVER JUDGES FOR THE CONTROVERSIAL FIGHT? You know, you'll have to do your least favorite thing in the whole world which is to read what I actually said, because I said it already in several earlier posts. if you need help, try some keywords "three neutral judges" and "BEFORE the fight". If still in doubt, try "Mirsad Husic", look up Bosnia on a map, and read Allan's third question.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 15, 2009 17:22:36 GMT -5
Tom is missing the main point, which was: The sanctioning bodies have some leverage - which they could use to address the fairness issues if they tried. Once the results are in the record books, we all have to live with them. So the best way to deal with unfair results is to try to head them off by making it harder for promoters to stack the judging deck anywhere that's flagrantly happening. We can all have our different views of what was and was not a fair result, but requiring three neutral, competent judges at each title fight would go some way to heading off these problems BEFORE they happen. IMO, that''s the only durable solution, but it needs the sanctioners to step up to the plate and make it part of their agenda to ensure that it happens, not just HOPE it happens. This point does NOT just involve rankings, its a much bigger issue. It involves the viability of international competition at a time when a huge worldwide economic downturn means the sport we love may especially be threatened. It affects the credibility of titles. It may affect whether some very good fighters even stay in this sport as opposed to getting into MMA for example, where fights can be decided by submissions, tapouts etc. Sanctioning bodies (and this is not directed just to Ryan, there ARE others, he's just the one who's here and started this thread) have a UNIQUE role they could play in this, but right now they aren't doing it. There's unique leverage they could exert to promote judging fairness, at the time of CONSENTING to the sanctioning, that would spin off across-the-board benefits.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 15, 2009 18:04:30 GMT -5
Ryan on the other hand,says look- that fighter won a homer decision, I don't have to rank her as the #1 challenger because I think she really is a 6 or a 7 in her division and she received the benefit of bad judging. Look at Ryan's latest ratings. You think Garside is above Adler there after this "bad decision" (quoting Ryan). Nope, Adler is in a class all by her own and Garside is down the list. He accepts the result (like he said, he has to) and Adler's his champ. End of story (for WIBA). Adler's #7 in my most recent list, which at least gives people some read on her relative to the others. Also, my rankings are NOT cooked, you are just complaining that I don't cook them to YOUR taste. The whole point of having computer rankings is to show what you get if you apply a COMMON set of rules EQUALLY to ALL FIGHTERS and ALL RESULTS. I have never said that's the only way to do things, but as each of the sanctioning bodies already produced its own rankings (with its own recipes included) I have chosen, like boxrec, to look at what you get if you apply the same rules uniformly to all fighters and all fights, STARTING from the results of record, which come from the judges appointed b y the commissions and, for title bouts, consented to by the sanctioning bodies. I am NOT trying to introduce my own prejudices and "take" on the fights into my rankings, they come from a set of UNIFORMLY applied rules, and that is why so many people (but not you) find them a useful PART of the ranking picture. But it's precisely because I DO recognize that some of the results going in are flawed that I have an extra interest in reducing those flaws. It's because the data are NOT "cooked" by me that I would like the data to be better. As well as bringing all the benefits I mentioned in my last post, it would improve the computer rankings to have better results going IN. Your problem, if that YOU always want ME to replace those flaws with YOUR take on what happened, which I won't. I won't even replace them with MY take on what happened, because that is not what computer rankings are supposed to be about. To get what you have always DEMANDED from me, which is to cook the results to fit YOUR conceptions of how they should have come out, you have to go to one person. YOU. As I've said to you many times before, you really need to get off your butt and do your own ranking system if you want rankings that fit YOUR conceptions of who won every fight. Its the only way. Get a website, get a database, and do it. I mean, if a total ignorant dumbass like me (according to you) can do that, what's stopping you?
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 16, 2009 19:33:13 GMT -5
Ryan on the other hand,says look- that fighter won a homer decision, I don't have to rank her as the #1 challenger because I think she really is a 6 or a 7 in her division and she received the benefit of bad judging. Look at Ryan's latest ratings. You think Garside is above Adler there after this "bad decision" (quoting Ryan). Nope, Adler is in a class all by her own and Garside is down the list. He accepts the result (like he said, he has to) and Adler's his champ. End of story (for WIBA). Adler's #7 in my most recent list, which at least gives people some read on her relative to the others. Also, my rankings are NOT cooked, you are just complaining that I don't cook them to YOUR taste. The whole point of having computer rankings is to show what you get if you apply a COMMON set of rules EQUALLY to ALL FIGHTERS and ALL RESULTS. I have never said that's the only way to do things, but as each of the sanctioning bodies already produced its own rankings (with its own recipes included) I have chosen, like boxrec, to look at what you get if you apply the same rules uniformly to all fighters and all fights, STARTING from the results of record, which come from the judges appointed b y the commissions and, for title bouts, consented to by the sanctioning bodies. I am NOT trying to introduce my own prejudices and "take" on the fights into my rankings, they come from a set of UNIFORMLY applied rules, and that is why so many people (but not you) find them a useful PART of the ranking picture. But it's precisely because I DO recognize that some of the results going in are flawed that I have an extra interest in reducing those flaws. It's because the data are NOT "cooked" by me that I would like the data to be better. As well as bringing all the benefits I mentioned in my last post, it would improve the computer rankings to have better results going IN. Your problem, if that YOU always want ME to replace those flaws with YOUR take on what happened, which I won't. I won't even replace them with MY take on what happened, because that is not what computer rankings are supposed to be about. To get what you have always DEMANDED from me, which is to cook the results to fit YOUR conceptions of how they should have come out, you have to go to one person. YOU. As I've said to you many times before, you really need to get off your butt and do your own ranking system if you want rankings that fit YOUR conceptions of who won every fight. Its the only way. Get a website, get a database, and do it. I mean, if a total ignorant dumbass like me (according to you) can do that, what's stopping you? Dee, Trust me, I stopped refering to your RANKINGS a long time ago. I don't have an interest in creating one of my own, just pointing out the two headed logic you spout. 1. You say, all rankings by your system are equal cuz it takes all data, regardless of quality. You say this, while you recognize that more and more title fight/major fight decisions are flawed by home cooking or poor judging, or worse, crooked-snakey promoters slanting the judges to make decisions to fit their financial future. 2. then you tell Ryan to be responsible RE: his sanctioning decisions. You insist he find "fight/location neutral" judges but you won't discard or re-rate the decisions that come out of the same fights you would like to see with "neutral" judges. DO YOU GET THAT? Nice double speak, DEE. Why would you put a single decision into your system if you any evidence,first or second hand, that decision was slanted, jaded or worse? Like I have said, you need to account for questionable decisions. And they are loaded thruout women's boxing. TD
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 17, 2009 0:01:05 GMT -5
It's precisely because everyone has to live with the decisions once they are recorded that it's so important to try to ensure fairness in the process that leads up to them. TD is missing the basic difference between things that could be done BEFORE the results are judged to make them fairer, and band-aids of various kinds that might be applicable AFTER the results are in.
Ryan has stated that the sanctioning bodies cannot overturn results once they are in, and that the best they can do is to order rematches. (Which, in the same locations with the same parameters, are not all that attractive a remedy.) Similarly, in computer ranking systems that are trying to treat all fights and fighters equally, we can't go in and arbitrarily rewrite the results to anyone's taste (TD's, mine, or anyone else's) either - not and claim to have applied any sort of uniform process to them all. I might just as well publish "Dee's rankings right outta Dee's head" as do what TD is asking me to do, and skip the whole fight scoring and rating process entirely.
So this is {part of) why I am focusing here on what could be done to improve the decisions BEFORE they are rendered. That's not something we can address from the rankings systems, it will take action by the sanctioning bodies to do it. If TD can't see this, I'm tired of trying to explain it to him (as usual), so this is the last post I'll make on it.
The other reasons for urging the sanctioning bodies to use all-neutral judging are that we're heading into a period when women's pro boxing is going to have to contend with MAJOR economic downturns in many parts of the world where it had been growing, and with rising competition from MMA. If the opportunities get rarer, the need for them to be fair is going to get greater, especially as the best meeting the best may depend ever more on international matchmaking if national matchmaking falls off.
Of course we need to focus on the things that CAN help to fix this, and the sanctioning bodies have an unique role to play. That's why their policies on this MATTER so much, and that's why we're talking about that here in the aftermath of Adler-Garside.
|
|