IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jospec/v18y2017i1p77-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Winning Probabilities, Weight Categories, and Home Advantage in Professional Judo

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Krumer

Abstract

Judo is a combat sport with seven different weight categories. In this article, we examined data from 1,902 men’s and 1,400 women’s fights at the eight most prestigious judo tournaments during the period 2010-2013. Using a single fight as the unit of observation, we found that the probability for the favorite to win against the underdog in the men’s half-lightweight category is significantly lower than in most other categories. Moreover, in fights in which only European and/or Asian judokas participate, we found that the men’s half-lightweight category is significantly more balanced than all other men’s categories. For women, there is no consistent evidence that any one weight category is more balanced than any of the others. Our results indicate that in choosing the members of a national team, it is to some extent reasonable for national coaches to select a lower ranked judoka in the men’s half-lightweight category over a higher ranked judoka in several other weight categories. We also found that the home advantage increases the probability of winning a single fight for both genders. This result implies that it might be worthwhile for national judo associations to bid to host international tournaments in order to improve the world rankings of their domestic judokas.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Krumer, 2017. "On Winning Probabilities, Weight Categories, and Home Advantage in Professional Judo," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 18(1), pages 77-96, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:18:y:2017:i:1:p:77-96
    DOI: 10.1177/1527002514560576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1527002514560576
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1527002514560576?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin G., 2004. "Favoritism of agents - The case of referees' home bias," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 461-469, August.
    2. Pettersson-Lidbom, Per & Priks, Mikael, 2010. "Behavior under social pressure: Empty Italian stadiums and referee bias," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 212-214, August.
    3. Dmitry Ryvkin & Andreas Ortmann, 2008. "The Predictive Power of Three Prominent Tournament Formats," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 492-504, March.
    4. Luis Garicano & Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Canice Prendergast, 2005. "Favoritism Under Social Pressure," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 208-216, May.
    5. Rosen, Sherwin, 1986. "Prizes and Incentives in Elimination Tournaments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 701-715, September.
    6. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    7. Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Heterogeneity and performance in tournaments: a test for incentive effects using professional tennis data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(25), pages 3199-3208.
    8. Loukas Balafoutas & Florian Lindner & Matthias Sutter, 2012. "Sabotage in Tournaments: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 425-441, November.
    9. Keith F. Gilsdorf & Vasant A. Sukhatme, 2008. "Testing Rosen's Sequential Elimination Tournament Model," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 9(3), pages 287-303, June.
    10. Klaassen F. J G M & Magnus J. R., 2001. "Are Points in Tennis Independent and Identically Distributed? Evidence From a Dynamic Binary Panel Data Model," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 500-509, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Federico Fioravanti & Fernando Delbianco & Fernando Tohm'e, 2023. "Visitors Out! The Absence of Away Team Supporters as a Source of Home Advantage in Football," Papers 2308.06279, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    2. Harb-Wu, Ken & Krumer, Alex, 2019. "Choking under pressure in front of a supportive audience: Evidence from professional biathlon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 246-262.
    3. Seungwhan Chun & Sang Soo Park, 2021. "Home Advantage in Skeleton: Familiarity versus Crowd Support," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-26, January.
    4. Delbianco Fernando & Fioravanti Federico & Tohmé Fernando, 2023. "Home advantage and crowd attendance: evidence from rugby during the Covid 19 pandemic," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 15-26, March.
    5. Linn-Brit Bakkenbüll & Stephanie Kiefer, 2015. "Are Attractive Female Tennis Players More Successful? An Empirical Analysis," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(4), pages 443-458, November.
    6. Cohen-Zada, Danny & Krumer, Alex & Shtudiner, Ze'ev, 2017. "Psychological momentum and gender," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 66-81.
    7. Wen‐Jhan Jane, 2023. "Hot hand or choking under pressure – Evidence from professional basketball," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 223-254, May.
    8. Wen‐Jhan Jane, 2022. "Choking or excelling under pressure: Evidence of the causal effect of audience size on performance," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 329-357, January.
    9. Krumer, Alex & Lechner, Michael, 2016. "First In First Win: Evidence on Unfairness of Round-Robin Tournaments in Mega-Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1611, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    10. Michael Jetter & Jay K. Walker, 2017. "Good Girl, Bad Boy? Evidence Consistent with Collusion in Professional Tennis," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 155-180, July.
    11. Bucciol, Alessandro & Castagnetti, Alessandro, 2020. "Choking under pressure in archery," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Krumer, Alex & Lechner, Michael, 2017. "First in first win: Evidence on schedule effects in round-robin tournaments in mega-events," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 412-427.
    13. Bakkenbüll, Linn-Brit & Kiefer, Stephanie, 2014. "Are attractive female tennis players more successful? An empirical analysis," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 12/2014, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alex Krumer & Mosi Rosenboim & Offer Moshe Shapir, 2016. "Gender, Competitiveness, and Physical Characteristics," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 17(3), pages 234-259, April.
    2. Krumer, Alex & Lechner, Michael, 2016. "First In First Win: Evidence on Unfairness of Round-Robin Tournaments in Mega-Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1611, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    3. Harb-Wu, Ken & Krumer, Alex, 2019. "Choking under pressure in front of a supportive audience: Evidence from professional biathlon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 246-262.
    4. Keith F. Gilsdorf & Vasant A. Sukhatme, 2013. "Gender differences in responses to incentives in sports: some new results from golf," Chapters, in: Eva Marikova Leeds & Michael A. Leeds (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Women in Sports, chapter 5, pages 92-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Wen‐Jhan Jane, 2022. "Choking or excelling under pressure: Evidence of the causal effect of audience size on performance," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(1), pages 329-357, January.
    6. Paul Bose & Eberhard Feess & Helge Mueller, 2022. "Favoritism towards High-Status Clubs: Evidence from German Soccer," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 422-478.
    7. Karol Kempa & Hannes Rusch, 2019. "Dissent, sabotage, and leader behaviour in contests: Evidence from European football," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(5), pages 500-514, July.
    8. Colella, F. & Dalton, Patricio & Giusti, G., 2021. "All you Need is Love : The Effect of Moral Support on Performance (Revision of CentER DP 2018-026)," Other publications TiSEM aa76dfa7-73db-45d1-8c47-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Kai Fischer & Justus Haucap, 2022. "Home advantage in professional soccer and betting market efficiency: The role of spectator crowds," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 294-316, May.
    10. Thomas Dohmen & Jan Sauermann, 2016. "Referee Bias," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 679-695, September.
    11. Dutcher, E. Glenn & Balafoutas, Loukas & Lindner, Florian & Ryvkin, Dmitry & Sutter, Matthias, 2015. "Strive to be first or avoid being last: An experiment on relative performance incentives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 39-56.
    12. Bar-Eli, Michael & Krumer, Alex & Morgulev, Elia, 2020. "Ask not what economics can do for sports - Ask what sports can do for economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2021. "Social pressure in the stadiums: Do agents change behavior without crowd support?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    14. Tomi Ovaska & Albert J. Sumell, 2014. "Who Has The Advantage? An Economic Exploration of Winning in Men's Professional Tennis," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 59(1), pages 34-51, May.
    15. Andrés Picazo-Tadeo & Francisco Gónzalez-Gómez & Jorge Guardiola Wanden-Berghe, 2011. "Referee home bias due to social pressure. Evidence from Spanish football," Working Papers 1119, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    16. Brian Hill, 2014. "The Heat Is On," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 15(4), pages 315-337, August.
    17. J. James Reade & Dominik Schreyer & Carl Singleton, 2022. "Eliminating supportive crowds reduces referee bias," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(3), pages 1416-1436, July.
    18. Rudi Stracke & Wolfgang Höchtl & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Uwe Sunde, 2015. "Incentives and Selection in Promotion Contests: Is It Possible to Kill Two Birds with One Stone?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(5), pages 275-285, July.
    19. Andrea Albanese & Stijn Baert & Olivier Verstraeten, 2020. "Twelve eyes see more than eight. Referee bias and the introduction of additional assistant referees in soccer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    20. Ulrike Holder & Thomas Ehrmann & Arne König, 2022. "Monitoring experts: insights from the introduction of video assistant referee (VAR) in elite football," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 285-308, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jospec:v:18:y:2017:i:1:p:77-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.