6.2.3 Results 94 It is also possible to calculate the rho-pion-pion coupling constant in this geometry [142]. This was also done in [2]. However, as we noted in section 5.4, this term would receive important contributions from F 3 terms in the holographic action, which we have thus far neglected. Nevertheless, for comparison with [2] we do perform this result, and find that in this geometry g$_{ρππ}$ = 4 . 81 MeV. This compares well with the experimental value of 6 . 03 ± 0 . 07 MeV [24]. In model B, we perform a global fit to all observables. This gives Λ$_{b}$ = 253 . 2 MeV and m = 2 . 24 MeV, with the characteristic scale for the quark condensate 311 . 9 MeV. The overall rms error for this model is 11.6%. Again we reproduce the equivalent pure AdS model fit for comparison. In the first model, A , we match b and m by demanding that we correctly reproduce m$_{π}$ and m$_{ρ}$ . In order to do this, we must set Λ$_{b}$ = 264 . 5 MeV and m = 2 . 16 MeV. This gives a prediction of 325 . 8 MeV for the scale of the quark condensate. The overall rms error for this model is 12.8%. For comparison we also reproduce the pure AdS fit to the same parameters found in [2]. That model has three free parameters, the value of the IR cut off, the quark mass and the quark condensate and is therefore less predictive. The results of the model are displayed in Table 6.1. We compute six QCD meson parameters for our fits (we do not include g$_{ρππ}$ ). Our model has two free parameters (after fixing g$_{5}$ phenomenologically as discussed above), b corresponding roughly to the strong coupling scale Λ, and m corresponding to the light quark mass. The model therefore has the same number of free parameters as real QCD.