Holm/Mathis: One More Time, One More Place – by Bernie McCoy

 Mike Tyson once said, “Everybody has a plan, until they get hit.” As I was watching a serviceable tape of Friday’s ten round WBAN, IBA, WBF female welterweight title fight between Holly Holm and Anne Sophie Mathis from Albuquerque, NM, it appeared that Holm’s team had devised a plan that was a brief variation of the Tyson quote: “Don’t get hit.” This was actually a sage strategy since seven months earlier, in the same ring, Mathis had left Holm dazed and bleeding in the seventh round of a scheduled ten round title fight. That bout had immediately became the talk of the boxing community and the highlights went viral on YouTube. Friday’s return bout was met with a more muted response from the boxing community; probably best characterized by a sense of relief that it had not been televised as a major attraction of the sport of Women’s boxing.

The Holm team strategy worked. Holly Holm avoided, for a full ten rounds, the punching power of Anne Sophie Mathis The problem with the bout was that the Holm strategy lasted ten full rounds and made for a less than compelling title fight. The quicker Holm continually backed away from the bigger, more stable Mathis and, given Holm’s reluctance to initiate the action, it fell to Mathis to “make the fight.” The Frenchwoman continually stalked the constantly retreating Holm and when the two fighters closed, Holm usually threw several punches from her toes, always looking for the opportunity to clinch with the bigger woman. Mathis, even through the filter of a tape, could be seen expressing frustration as the fight wore on as the realization set in that twenty minutes might not be long enough to walk down the speedy Holm. Yet thru every round, Mathis, to her credit, continued to bring the fight to her foe, continued in the role of the aggressor, initiating the sporadic exchange of punches as she followed Holm around the large ring (more on that later). Holm’s offense, throughout the bout was designed to keep Mathis at a distance until an inevitable clinch could be effected. This desultory ritual continued for the entire 10 rounds: Mathis looking to land big punches, Holm looking to get to the final bell.

Holm prevailed not only from a strategy sense, but also and in the eyes of the hometown crowd and that of the judges. The three cards read: 96-94, 97-93 and, ludicrously, 99-91. The third “judgment” was rendered by one Dave Moretti.

Holm/Mathis was a difficult fight to judge and was probably a fair call. Mathis’ aggression, throughout the bout, was her main asset, she “carried” the fight the entire ten rounds. However, it’s probably not particularly surprising that the visiting fighter seemed to get scant credit, on the scorecards, for her aggressive approach.

That Anne Sophie Mathis was the visiting fighter after her decisive win in December was a result of a return bout clause in the initial contract. Mathis, as the champion, was required to travel, once again, across multiple time zones to defend, what was now, her crown. Holly Holm remained ensconced in Albuquerque as she has for the vast majority of her career. Understand: Holm is one of the best fighters, not just in the welterweight division but also in the sport of Women’s boxing. That she has beaten all the best fighters in her class (until the first Mathis bout) is a direct testament to her future HOF talent. That most of those fights have been contested in New Mexico represent, if at all, but the slightest advantage to this talented fighter. However, when faced with comparable talent, such as an Anne Sophie Mathis, slight advantages can be meaningful. In the case of the second Holm/Mathis bout, such a slight advantage resulted in a substantially larger ring from the initial bout (reportedly, twenty-two feet, increased from eighteen) which played, conveniently, into Holm’s “don’t get hit” strategy. Did that make a big difference in the bout? Who knows, but it probably didn’t hurt Holm’s chances of getting to the final bell and putting the decision in the judges’ hands.

There should be a third fight. It shouldn’t be in New Mexico. Holly Holm and Anne Sophia Mathis are the two best welterweight female fighters in the sport; maybe the two best fighters in Women’s boxing. They’ve fought twice and quite frankly, based on the results, I’d rank them equal with, possibly, a slight edge going to Mathis. She dominated the first fight, Holm won the second bout with style adjustments that worked to perfection and blunted Mathis’ main advantage, punching power. I would suspect that Mathis’ team will make adjustments of their own and, if a third fight materializes, Anne Sophie Mathis will find a way to achieve more punching room than she had in the second bout. Holm’s team will, of course, likewise make adjustments to their adjustments and it is this type of back and forth strategy that makes a series of bouts between two good fighters so compelling.

But that’s strategy. The ultimate settlement will be in the ring. Lenny Fresquez, when asked about a possible third bout in France, talked about “the money.” Mathis has come to New Mexico twice, she’s up to date as far as the dues of ceding a “hometown” advantage. In fairness, the third fight, if there is one, has to be in a venue other than New Mexico. It could be France, it could be some other neutral site in Europe or the US. Lenny Fresquez is a good boxing guy and he surely knows Holm/Mathis III should happen and, I suspect, he even knows it probably should happen somewhere other than where the first two bouts were held. Money has been used as an excuse to sabotage several potential “big” fights throughout the history of Women’s boxing:: Martin/Rijker and Ali/Wolfe come immediately to mind. Holm/Mathis III is too good an attraction to add to the “never happened” list in a sport that needs big bouts. Lenny Fresquez is too good a boxing guy to let that happen. We’ve had “The Reckoning.” Now how about “One More Time” in one more place.

“In the orginal draft of this story, I made reference to the fact that Duane Ford judged the fight 99-91 for Holm. This was incorrect, that scoring should have been attributed to Dave Moretti. I apologize to the readers and to Mr. Ford for the error, which has been subsequently corrected. Bernie McCoy”