8/16 fight bets

Parlaying Shawn "Showtime" Porter(-270) over Kell "The Special One" Brook, Sara McMann(-300)over Lauren Murphy, and Ryan "Darth" Bader(-165)over Ovince St. Preux pays a bit under 2/1, indicating that one of these fighters will probably disappoint.  Still, that outcome still occupies about 1/3 of the probability pie, cramming the other eight possibilities into considerably narrower slices.  In other words, this outcome is far more likely than any other combination of these fights.

I mention this, as you may have guessed, because I have parlayed these three fights, but beyond that, because I am trying to determine the best way to bet these fights.  Given that two of these fighters are about 1/3 favorites, losing a large amount on either of them makes it almost impossible for me to make a profit on the night, unless I bet considerably more on one of the other fights, and win.

Of course, we don't know which fight to bet less on, do we?  If we knew, we would just avoid this fight altogether, and load up on the other two.

This is going nowhere, for now at least, and is ironically turning into a bit of a buzzkill.  Ironically, because I am a bit buzzed right now, thanks to a Sweetwater IPA, with some Woodford Reserve neat, and ice on the side.  I haven't used any ice yet.

Goodbye writers block, hello incoherence.  A fair trade off, I hope.

Lets break this thing down.

Reach:  What could go wrong?  Well, my biggest worry with Shawn Porter is his lack of reach.*  Off the top of my head, I don't recall what kind of a disadvantage he is at, but he is two inches shorter than Brook.  I don't like betting against a reach advantage, as you may have gathered from my previous ramblings concerning Tyson Fury (6'9) vs. Dereck Chisora (6'1)...

Sorry, I don't recall their actual reaches, though I will guess about 85" vs. 74."  Converting over from metric (and stone) doesn't make it any easier either.  I don't recall Porter and Brook's reaches at all, and Impellizzeri's internet connection isn't as impressive as their pizza.

Anyway, Porter isn't dealing with the same kind of disadvantage as Chisora, and I think he has several things in his favor.  I expect these to bring him the win.

Speed:  It would probably be more dramatic to put these in ascending order, but I think this is the most important, and we can debate which is the most important anyway.  Speed is what is going to get him past Brook's defenses.  If he can't do this consistently enough to get ahead on points, Porter(-270) could be a very foolish bet.  (After reach, this is probably the attribute least up for debate--much easier to evaluate speed with the eyeball test than power.)

Work Rate:  If Porter can use his speed to consistently get inside against Brook, he'll be ahead on points.  If Brook successfully keeps him at bay, Brook will be ahead.  If the result is somewhere in between, I expect Porter's work rate to get him ahead on the scorecards.

Activity isn't everything.  Maidana out worked Floyd Mayweather, but wildly missed with enough punches that only one judge was delusional enough to think he'd kept up.  From what I've seen, Porter is reasonably accurate with his punches, so I don't think this will be a problem.  I haven't seen anything from Brook that makes me think he's going to make Porter miss, which brings us to...

Class:  Porter is widely regarded to have fought tougher opponents than Brook.  I'm not terribly interested in debating this, because I am a layman, and I am only taking the word of experts that Porter has had tougher opponents.  I'm probably more impressed with him sparring with Manny Pacquiao than with anyone he's fought, in all honesty.  Sparring with Pacquiao could give you more perspective on speed, elusiveness, etc. than anyone either of these guys has fought.  I think class is more up for debate than any thing else I will discuss, but I list it here because I think it is part of the speed equation that makes me think Porter will win rounds.... On that note...

Power:  The eyeball test tells me Porter has more of it than Brook.  On the other hand, I've seen plenty of fights where the guy with less power and more reach held off his opponent for a decision.  If Brook can consistently catch Porter on his way in, and slow him down, the power won't matter.  If he catches him, but Porter still gets inside, Porter's inside game should at least be enough to impress the judges, whether he can hurt Brook or not.

If you look at their recent fights, Brook has more stops than Porter.  I believe this goes back to the question of class.  If you believe Porter has had tougher fights, this will explain the lack of recent KOs.  If not, you may be able to talk yourself into Brook having better power.  Again, I rate speed and reach above power, because shots landed take more of a toll than shots avoided

Judges:  This fight is in Carson, California.  I don't know where Carson is, and unless you're from California, neither do you.  In any case, it's a lot closer to Ohio than it is to Sheffield, or Leeds, or where ever Brook is from.

I'm not saying the fix is in, and I'm not saying it isn't.  In case of a close fight, though, I like my guy to have a home field advantage (or be the champ--that's even better).

My own experience may be coloring my point of view here...I like to bet heavily on a few fights, rather than spread my bets around, but in fights I've bet and won money on...

Georges St. Pierre over Jonny Hendricks--Hendricks may have lost on rounds, but he beat GSP's face in. Champ wins.

Jonny Hendricks over Robbie Lawler--Hendricks, the heir apparent, arguably interim champ, wins on rounds, despite getting his face beat in.  Less controversial than his loss to GSP, and Hendricks deserves props for standing against Lawler for most of the fight, but Lawler lit him up for more than two rounds.

Canelo Alvarez over Erislandy Lara--maybe the most controversial--whether or not you think Lara won, there is no way in hell he lost 117-111, as the judge from NEW MEXICO had it.  Was the fix in?  I don't know, but Teddy Atlas seems to think so.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, Canelo needed to be protected so that boxing/Golden Boy could cash in in the future.  I don't think Porter-Brook will draw as much attention from the powers-that-be, but we can still follow the money.  Porter is getting about 3/4 of the purse, implying that he is the more valuable fighter right now.  I suppose $$ that would follow Porter would find their way to the UK if Brook won.  I don't think the fix is in, but tie goes to the American.  Lets move on.

The UFC has less of an interest in keeping fighters undefeated, but I think they could benefit from Ovince St. Preux stepping up and beating Ryan Bader.

Bader wins the fights he is supposed to, and loses the fights he's supposed to (Texiera, Machida, Jones).

I don't happen to know what the odds were when he lost to Tito Ortiz, but Tito is a legend, so there's no shame in losing to him.  There are two knocks on Bader.  One is that  he's boring.  Boring may be in the eye of the beholder, but lots of beholders on Youtube think he's boring.  If he loses a controversial decision, you can grind this up in your conspiracy theory mill.  (Boring = less money = loss)

The other is that when he loses, he gets embarrassed.  His losses tend to be abrupt, and humiliating to boot. Check his fights vs. Machida or Texiera.

On the other hand, check out his win vs. Rampage Jackson.  He dominates that fight on his feet.  Not too many fighters have pull this off.

At this point, Bader is arguably a gatekeeper.  He's not going to get a belt, but he could keep another fighter from getting a shot at one.  Let's take a look at his opponent.

The current narrative with St. Preux is that he's gotten better over the last few fights.  As such, a win over Bader could get him close to a title shot, or at least another headliner.  If you watch his fights, there's a good chance he will impress you more than Bader.

Bur who has he fought?  The best opponent he's had is probably Gegard Mousasi.  Not coincidentally, that was the last time he lost.  OSP has more stops than Bader, but compare their opposition.  Bader's opponents would crush St. Preux's.

You may think St. Preux is younger than Bader, but he is only less proven.  They are the same age.  I must admit that Bader looks like he has a bit more wear on his tires.  I think you could go broke guessing when a fighter is done though...or a running back, or a bull market, and so on and so on.

Both of these guys have a wrestling pedigree.  St Preux was state runner-up in his weight class in high school, while Bader was a two-time NCAA All-American.  Advantage: Bader, though both have no-doubt evolved since then.  As far as stand up goes, I think St. Preux shows some athleticism with his kicks, etc. but Bader dominated Rampage standing up.  Bader's advantages over St. Preux may be more up for debate than Porter's over Brook, but you can see which side of the debate I land on.

As far as conspiracy theories go, I think a win over Bader makes St. Preux an interesting commodity, as it would help to sell him as a title contender, and in my mind, a win would actually solidify the "OSP is improving" narrative.  (Don't overlook the appeal of replacing GSP with OSP either.)  Bader is not interesting now, and a win over OSP won't make him more interesting.  That's why I think St. Preux could get the nod from the judges if this fight is close.  On the other hand, MMA doesn't fetishize fighters' records the way boxing does, so there is rarely as much incentive to influence the outcome of a fight.

It's possible St. Preux has improved enough to beat Bader.  I just don't think we have any evidence that he has.  He has some impressive game tape, but that's not so hard to come by against lesser oposition.  It doesn't really give us any indication of what he will do against Bader.  In a way, I think the odds on this fight are a bit of a compromise.  If St. Preux had done anything to indicate he is a late-blooming phenom, he would be favored.  If not for this narrative of his improvement, I think Bader would be between a (-200) to (-300) favorite.  Instead, you can get Bader for (-160).  If I'm right, this is a bargain.

That brings us to Sara McMann(-300) vs. Lauren Murphy.  Murphy was even more difficult to get a handle on than Kell Brook or Ovince St. Preux.  Brook has plenty of footage, only his competition is suspect.  Likewise with OSP, only the old fights are harder to find.  I still haven't found the full fight vs. Mousasi, though there are several post-fight interviews.

Murphy seemed to be a total unknown.  While this generally indicates that a fighter isn't that good, or at least, isn't that experienced, the lack of information adds to the uncertainty.

Well, the uncertainty lessened when I found her fighting as Lauren Taylor.  Apparently she recently got married.

Still, as Lauren Taylor, some of her fights were in bars in Alaska.  Her career seems to have followed a similar arc to Wolverine, other than she is short some adamantium claws...and a cigar...and massive sideburns.

Lauren Taylor had some heavy hands, and has managed to slug her way to an unbeaten record.  While she looks like she does okay on her feet, her hands (and elbows) seem most dangerous in the ground-and-pound.  She may fight a bit bigger than McMann as well, though I haven't found anything to confirm this impression.

Sara McMann is best known for her wrestling, where she is an Olympic silver medalist, but I am impressed with her stand up game as well.  She has excellent form as a boxer.  I don't know how hard she hits, but I think if she does less damage on her feet her opponents deserve some credit, as she has had tougher opposition than Taylor/Murphy.  I also think she will be harder to hurt standing up, as her boxing form indicates some good defense on her feet.

Unfortunately for Murphy, her greatest strength is probably her ground-and-pound game.  If she can achieve a dominant position she is a legitimate threat to end a fight, but I think she will have her hands full trying to do this against a wrestler as polished as McMann.  To say Murphy will need to get lucky is an understatement. It's one thing to say the underdog has a puncher's chance, but for all their prowess, women don't hit as hard as men.  Even when you have one punch knock-out power, it's not that easy to land that one punch.  Other than the few ladies with more testosterone than the average man, there's not too much one-punch power in women's MMA, so punchers chance here is basically just an expression.

On the other hand there are definitely some women with knock-out power in their legs.  Check out Miesha Tate vs. Kaitlin Young for an example of that.

The thing is, I haven't seen anything to indicate that Murphy has much of a kicking game.  We probably all have enough power in our legs to knock somebody out, but I think it's safe to discount her "kickers chance."

McMann should be able to get ahead with takedowns whenever she feels like it, and I think her standing game is strong enough to put her ahead as well.  Murphy will need a stoppage to win this fight, and McMann is as tough as anybody to stop on the ground.  

If Murphy finds a way to win, I could see her getting some title fight buzz, largely because the pool of contenders Ronda Rousey hasn't already beat seems to be drying up.  Is this enough to sway judges if this fight is close?  

Probably not.  Sara McMann is probably going to get a rematch with Rousey a couple fights from now because the ref stopped their fight early, so the powers-that-be are probably at least as interested in McMann winning as in a new contender from Alaska.  With as few bantamweight women contenders as there seems to be, one loss shouldn't derail either of their future chances.

Well, those are my picks for next week.  I think McMann over Murphy is the safest bet, though if you're looking for safe, buy a mutual fund or something.

* According to the Bleacher Report, Porter has a slightly longer reach, despite being 3.5 inches shorter than Brook.  Obviously, this doesn't make me any less interested in betting him.