"The Nelo Judge" Strikes Again

Breaking down the rounds by judge majority: Rd 1. Canelo 3x Rd 2. Canelo 3x Rd 3. GGG 2x Rd 4. GGG 3x Rd 5. GGG 2x Rd 6. GGG 2x Rd 7. GGG 2x Rd 8. GGG 2x Rd 9. GGG 2x Rd 10. Canelo 3x Rd 11. Canelo 3x Rd 12. Canelo 3x That's a smart method of totting up the scores. Is there any reason why it couldn't be implemented officially? Seems like a good way to eliminate outlier scorecards like Byrd's

100%. Whenever I see the cards for a fight I usually try to think of how they got to that conclusion, even if I ultimately disagree with their scorecard, & can typically get there or within a round of there when considering close swing rounds, but idk how you watch this fight & only give GGG 2 rounds. I thought Canelo straight gaveaway a couple of those middle rounds with long periods of inactivity so she had to have only gave GGG 2 of those middle giveaway rounds & nothing else. Anyone got the rbr scoring btw? NM I found it. Looks like she gave GGG the 4th & 7th. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ5m2F4WAAEKaM0.jpg:large That's been my new mentality for the past couple of years. I don't score an absolute card but rather a range of reasonable scores. In this fight, I think that range is 116-112 GGG to 115-113 for Canelo. So a draw is not out of possibility. But 118-110 is a travesty

When you look at the scores of some of these fights it seems 1 judge scores every close round to fighter A 1 judge scores every close round to fighter B 1 judge scores it honestly That's why you often see crazy split decisions and majority decisions I can't prove that they do that but it's something I've always wondered Don't know that it's intentional but judges generally lean a certain way, and favour one approach over another. The problem is it's too subjective a sport for close fights. Not sure how you saw this one but I thought it was close, and could've gone either way. I preferred what Canelo was doing in more rounds, but I'm objective enough to see the other side. All that being said, Byrd's card was bullshit, and I can't see a logical way of arriving there.

When you look at the scores of some of these fights it seems 1 judge scores every close round to fighter A 1 judge scores every close round to fighter B 1 judge scores it honestly That's why you often see crazy split decisions and majority decisions I can't prove that they do that but it's something I've always wondered Great thread, highlighting the persistent corruption now in place to ensure the cash cow can remain milking And i also agree with the last 2 sentences, these geriatric judges need to **** off. We need nee, young, fresh eyes on the sport not some pension collecting 80 year olds

I've been thinking about it, and I'm starting to question the concept of a bought judge, at least in situations like this. Why go out of your way to have a wide card in a fighter's favour when a close one serves the same purpose? That's certainly what I'd expect a paid off judge to do. Hanlon's razor springs to kind. When you look at the scores of some of these fights it seems 1 judge scores every close round to fighter A 1 judge scores every close round to fighter B 1 judge scores it honestly That's why you often see crazy split decisions and majority decisions I can't prove that they do that but it's something I've always wondered

I've been thinking about it, and I'm starting to question the concept of a bought judge, at least in situations like this. Why go out of your way to have a wide card in a fighter's favour when a close one serves the same purpose? That's certainly what I'd expect a paid off judge to do. Hanlon's razor springs to kind. Because the judges they buy are the ones that are the most idiotic. Think that giving the fight to their fighter harder gives a bigger paycheck.

At this point I swear it'd be better if we went back to having newspaper decisions. The press row score averaged out is always a better representation than the three official scorecards Then the press row will be paid off. And there's thousands of fights the press doesn't even cover.

let the referee judge the fight like in the old days.

I've been thinking about it, and I'm starting to question the concept of a bought judge, at least in situations like this. Why go out of your way to have a wide card in a fighter's favour when a close one serves the same purpose? That's certainly what I'd expect a paid off judge to do. Hanlon's razor springs to kind.

At this point I swear it'd be better if we went back to having newspaper decisions. The press row score averaged out is always a better representation than the three official scorecards

Dela Hoya and the athletic commission didn't seem that concerned about that judge when constantly questioned. Everybody know what happened and this isnt the first time this has happened.

They always buy one at least or two. I think this time it was two they knew they needed that insurance. And that score surprised no one.