|
|
Post by Tractorpull on Mar 14, 2018 9:22:08 GMT -6
TESS VALMORE
Let me state at the beginning that I am well aware of all the objections that can be raised against this article. Whatever objections are raised, the only real reason is that managers want the option of scheduling a win. Yes, there is no sure thing as we recently seen the the recent Doll House card. Those big upsets are so rare that they are statistically irrelevant. Please note that I am not targeting any stable. The practice is fairly wide spread.
The Commissioner does a fine job every year eliminating “dead wood” from the stables. The problem is that the “dead wood” simply moves into the unmanaged list. Boxing World in their excellent comprehensive rankings list a total of 804 fighters, all of which are available for fights. There is nothing to prevent an easy fight from being made. A manager could choose Paris Hilton for a fight. She has had seven fights, never won one and her last FCBA.fight was in 2011. No one is going to object because they may want to do the same thing (A lone exception may be Mr V who doesn’t like many Front Street bouts) We had one title fight in 2016, where the manager chose as a contender, a fighter who had had only two fights, lost both and was ranked at 162. Such bouts make a mockery of the FCBA
I propose the following should be banned from further fighting
Any fighter who has lost ten straight. Don’t think of Lucy Hale. She didn’t lose ten straight. Losing ten straight is a little more than a rough patch. It borders on incompetence
Any fighter over 42 who has lost five straight. This is not going to effect as many big names as you might think
Any fighter who hasn’t fought or won a fight in the last five years. If they haven’t fought in five years, there is a reason why. No one is interested. You see them pop up now and then. Note, they never challenge. They are selected by the manager seeking a name for an easy win.
Any fight where a newcomer in her first fight goes against a top ten fighter We had an incident like this on the February PPV. A win by a new fighter against a experienced fighter with a winning record almost never works out for the newbie
Eliminating the above still leaves plenty of easy fights that can be made, but should make the FCBA a little more competitive
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassago on Mar 14, 2018 9:57:41 GMT -6
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
FCBA is doing much better than few years ago. New managers and new writers are coming along. New fighters are making waves. But people still find a reason to complain. I just don't get it.
FCBA is doing just fine in the competitive department if you look outside of the usual Asylum 6-0 result for the home team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginny on Mar 14, 2018 10:33:43 GMT -6
As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with Tess Valmore - at least for the most part (which is a huge step in any case!!)
There is no logical reason why the FCBA ownership, management and "powers that be" need to take the steps proposed. For one thing, it will simply put more burden on them to DO SOMETHING when they could be off on a free junket with several congresspersons "inspecting" venues where future PPVs could be held. Besides, shouldn't the burden be on the managers to clean up their own house?
Wouldn't a "code of conduct" for managers - posted every six months or so - to remind them of the folly of trying "too hard" to pump up a failing fighter (rather than cutting ties and moving on to someone new). If (for example) a manager - in her wisdom - wanted to find a few wins for an aging ex-champion like (oh, Charlize Theron?) there are plenty of young, up-and-coming, fighters available without resorting to the kind of *outrageous* mismatches in the examples. (and does anyone really care if somebody loses fight straight? or ten? And why?)
Besides, if a manager WANTS to continue to make fights their fighter loses... why not let them? (HELLO! These aren't "real people" they're simply cardboard cut-out figures described in words moving electronically across a video screen!) There's nothing that "requires" anyone to WRITE these fights! And if someone DOES want to write them; put them up and see how many views they get. Who cares if there are 100 fights in a PPV - as long as no one is forced to write them.
We can even include a disclaimer - if you want - with each one.
"No actual celebrity was harmed in the making of this fight. Eyeballs, however, may be another matter!" (or words to that effect).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassago on Mar 14, 2018 11:12:17 GMT -6
The issue here is with free agents. They always die a natural death anyway. Why put a ban on them? Tess Valmore dislikes older fighters, why should everyone dislike them too? Especially under strict league rule? That's bull. Tess has banned Gena Lee Nolin from her Hall of Fame, banned JMD(D) fights from her rankings and now seeks another ban? How much is enough? Just ban, ban, ban... She's definitely the least tolerant character on this board. Might as well join Tea Party and scream "Mike Pence for President" next!  |
|
|
|
Post by Tractorpull on Mar 14, 2018 12:00:49 GMT -6
Maybe Mr as a moderator is too close to the subject. If the FCBA is just fine in the competitive department, please explain to me why corrcct prediction ratio is 80% when used to be around 65%
|
|
|
|
Post by Lookout! Boxing on Mar 14, 2018 12:16:45 GMT -6
The FCBA certainly isn't broke and is really great shape overall, but we're always interested in ways to make it better.
I think everybody in the FCBA can agree that they want a league that is competitive - no question about that. I'm very interested in hearing thoughts and ideas from other managers regarding scheduling in the league, though I think most of our managers do a pretty great job. Not always, of course and I'm not going to name names at this time - I'm guilty of it myself and the match in the February PPV is probably referring to mine. We love Tessa Thompson and think she would be a good addition to the league, so we put her up against type-rival Vanessa Hudgens. It was a fun match and hopefully neither fighter came out of it looking too badly. By example, Elizabeth Henstridge lost her first bout in the FCBA to Vanessa (no shame there), but has really come around to be one of the tougher flyweights. So, there's no telling how a fighter will turn out.
As of right now, I'm not inclined to ban any fighter from the league. However, I think we might be less inclined to approve matches that are quite so disparate unless there is a good case to be made. If you've been participating in the league for some time now, odds are your fighters are going to be ranked. That doesn't mean you can't introduce a new fighter to the league, take on an underrated fighter if you think there is a good match/rivalry to be made or some other similar reason. We try to do that from time to time ourselves, as mentioned above and plan to do so at times in the future.
However, people need to be forthcoming about these fights. If they're not going to be competitive, then acknowledge what purpose that they serve.
So, to all managers in the FCBA, please be thoughtful when you're making a fight. We want to see fresh and unorthodox match-ups in the FCBA - it would not be exciting to see the same matches over and over - nor is it fun to write. So, we are fine with fresh and exciting match-ups. We understand it can't be the same group of highly ranked fighters competing against each other all the time and we want to see NEW fighters introduced into the league, which may very well occur against highly ranked fighters. We want to see fun matches and of course, upsets can happen at any time.
But, I do agree that fighters who have lost multiple straight matches, fighters over a certain age who are not competitive any longer or any fighter who hasn't been competitive in recent history should be at the BOTTOM of your match-making list. Those matches are likely to be mocked and may not be taken seriously over time. However, if there is a good reason why you want to see that match or that the fans will, then let's make it happen but those should be the exception, not the rule. I'm open to any other thoughts or ideas, but let's clean up our stables, clean up the league and keep it fun for everybody!
Thanks Tractorpull for this article, for your thoughts and for your commitment to keeping the league competitive, which hopefully is shared by everybody. I do agree with Vassago that the league is MUCH better than it has been and is really headed in the right direction, though always room for improvement and I am very intrigued by Ginny's suggestion. If the league thinks a CODE OF CONDUCT would be beneficial, then I'd be interested in putting one up and working with others to determine what should be included. If not, I'm going to leave it to managers to clean up their act and will only deny a match if it's a particularly egregious offender! Hopefully that will work out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassago on Mar 14, 2018 12:40:13 GMT -6
Maybe Mr as a moderator is too close to the subject. If the FCBA is just fine in the competitive department, please explain to me why corrcct prediction ratio is 80% when used to be around 65% Hmm.. so the prediction ratio is the most important thing around the entire FCBA management should be focused? Then you should apply for the commisioner job and approve the fights yourself I've voiced my displeasure over Katy Perry vs Beau Garrett as the mismatch of the year. I see you have no issues with the Asylum match-making since you hang out there all the time. As long as fights like Perry/Garrett are approved (and I can bring some others like Holly Marie Combs comeback among others) and Tess Valmore takes the HBO cash, there's just no valid reason to call a ban on other free agents and other manager ideas. The perenial 6-0 Asylum scores are so predictable it's not even funny alas Old Wiz is allowed to keep going with his managerial powers. That's fine but if he's allowed to do it then so should EVERYONE else. Unless we go by double standards and some managers are forbidden to seek the so-called "easy" wins. Some girls will always be labelled as punchbags over here, that's the luck of the draw. It's not as bad as Paige Van Zant releasing her biography at age 23 in the middle of a lousy UFC streak. Some girls will always get fights no matter how unimpressive their records are  |
|
|
|
Post by The Dollhouse on Mar 14, 2018 12:43:35 GMT -6
We mostly disagree.
Banning a fighter for losing 'X straight' might encourage mismatches as the managers of fighters who are at risk of getting banned will be incentivized to book them against jobbers to avoid the ban.
Also, you claim that new fighters rarely win their debuts, so if someone wants a 'free win' they can always find someone new (there are plenty of celebrities...) instead of someone on a long losing streak.
Also, banning someone like Ariana Grande for example is just a loss for the FCBA. I'm sure plenty of people (managers or not) would want to see her in future fights, including us.
And there are plenty of similar examples.
Banning for "not fighting in 5 years" would also be a loss. You're putting way more weight into 'competitiveness' than you do 'diversity/interest'. Banning specific celebrities is just going to make FCBA less attractive.
There should be other ways of making things more competitive - either by changing the way results are determined a bit, or making some new 'rules' for booking fights, that can help prevent those 'free-wins' fights from taking place.
But outright BANNING celebrities from fighting will be harmful in our eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tractorpull on Mar 14, 2018 13:11:47 GMT -6
Mr V reads into post what he wants to, but he has never been one of my admirers if I have any. I have expressed much criticism over the Asylum bouts. I suggest he read the March Asylum predictions
I was well aware when I wrote the post what the reaction would be. I knew it woldn’t set well with managers but I stand by what I said
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassago on Mar 14, 2018 13:22:26 GMT -6
Mr V reads into post what he wants to, but he has never been one of my admirers if I have any. I have expressed much criticism over the Asylum bouts. I suggest he read the March Asylum predictions I was well aware when I wrote the post what the reaction would be. I knew it woldn’t set well with managers but I stand by what I said I'm well aware of the critical words issued by Tess over the past several months. This has nothing to do with the level of admiration I have for your opinion. Strenght of schedule has been my main match-making criteria since day one and that's the only reason Cassidy Freeman never fought You Know Who among other things. However after several years here I've accepted that the best solution is to simply let things flow their own way. Whether that means Beau Garrett (who should be banned from FCBA under your rules) now becomes Asylum's favorite target, so be it. But then again if you walk out on Upton/Tahnee Atkinson just because of You Know What and sit there watching Perry vs Garrett then it's just double standards. |
|
The Grand Wizard OOC
Guest
|
Post by The Grand Wizard OOC on Mar 14, 2018 13:25:08 GMT -6
Look. Here's what this comes down to. It's fun. And, that's what it's supposed to be. I liked the Hudgens/Thompson fight, for example, not because I thought Thompson would win (though, of course, she had a chance to do same), but because it was an attractive type-rival fight between two attractive women. And, Henstridge is FAR from the first fighter to lose a fight against a ranked fighter in her debut and follow on to have great success. Who would have picked Camila Mendes to beat Jane Levy in Mendes' debut? But, she did, she got more fights, and then she got management, and she's now a factor in the FCBA. Those things happen, too. There are plenty of great matchups in the FCBA every single month. But, some won't appeal to everyone. Some like JMD/D and some don't. Some don't like smaller girls and some don't like bigger girls and others love them. Some don't like older fighters and others do. This is why some fights get more views than others. And, therein lies the answer to this issue. If a fight doesn't interest you, don't read it. But. Feel free to criticize. Because, that's part of the fun, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassago on Mar 14, 2018 13:33:11 GMT -6
I used the "fun" part to justify my choices when Lowndes got blacklisted by TP for doing too much JMD. That never worked out and resulted in the biggest strain between Tess Valmore & Mr. V to date.
Banning Ariana Grande for losing ten fights in a row is supposed to be fun?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tractorpull on Mar 14, 2018 14:08:25 GMT -6
We have been over this numerous times. I never blacklisted Lowndes for any reason. I did ignore one fight agains Lohan. It had nothing to do with Lowndes. Since then I think you will find that I have been supportive of Lowndes. All that was a long time ago
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassago on Mar 14, 2018 14:32:43 GMT -6
We have been over this numerous times. I never blacklisted Lowndes for any reason. I did ignore one fight agains Lohan. It had nothing to do with Lowndes. Since then I think you will find that I have been supportive of Lowndes. All that was a long time ago I'm not talking about that Lohan fight. I'm talking about the TP response to the February 2015 JMD title fight between Lowndes & Kendra Wilkinson, another one of your "favs". The old boards are gone now so I can't bring up the quotes anymore but this is the " recent Tractorpull Magazine agenda" mentioned in the Flyweight/JMD Title clash with V.Hudgens that followed in May. And it continues with my post-fight comments from Lohan at the conclusion of the JMD title fight in June. Yes, that was long time ago but there's only one Alpha Lioness around |
|
