Those Two 115-113 Cards Always Scoring Closer Than Reality to Sell Rematches

people forget one judged said canelo -floyd was a draw

Who the hell is Skipper anyway? Is he a retired judge or something? Like Harold Lederman? That guy was the worst unofficial judge I have ever seen. Skipper Kelp. He boxed in 90s, and has a gym in Vegas. He’s friends with Dana, and I assume that’s who got him the job

Haha. I have no clue who Skipper is, and I know a lot of people were in disagreement with him- this guy seemed way off. I had it close after four rounds, I actually had the first 6 rounds even (though I gave Canelo the first round which was fairly quiet). Regardless, I think Skipper was way off. Who the hell is Skipper anyway? Is he a retired judge or something? Like Harold Lederman? That guy was the worst unofficial judge I have ever seen.

I watched on mute so I didn't hear this. Definitely gets me thinking now - I must be alone on this, but I was perplexed with how that Skipper guy, who I have never seen on a TV card before and I watch a lot (and many others commented the same) - he had TC up 4-0 immediately, like it was just 100% he won those rounds. Wasn't a whole to to judge there to give 4 in a row to the challenger imo. And now I see that quote from Max which is basically asking/telling the viewer to confirm was was set in earlier. I see you in the RbRs all the time, I know you watch all the fights so I trust your opinion - did you see 4-0 out the gate? are you familiar with Skipper? Haha. I have no clue who Skipper is, and I know a lot of people were in disagreement with him- this guy seemed way off. I had it close after four rounds, I actually had the first 6 rounds even (though I gave Canelo the first round which was fairly quiet). Regardless, I think Skipper was way off.

the fact that 2 judges had canelo up after the 10th is insane. If Bud didnt win the last 2 rounds on their cards it ends a draw or a canelo win. Ridiculous Honestly, my scorecard reflected the judges. I think Canelo pushing Crawford back and landing hard body shots or some straight rights gave him the rounds. Canelo has always had the flashy punches that catch the judges' attention. But in this case, it's not as if he was missing Bud. To my surprise, Bud took those punches like a champ. I thought they'd catch up to him but they never did. I think what I failed to understand in the buildup to this fight (as I had Canelo winning in my prediction) was how good sports science is and how well companies like SNAC are able to help fighters gain weight without the negative side effects of doing so. I was convinced that Bud would tire in the back half, as has been historically the case with fighters putting on muscle they are not used to. Crawford didn't show any of those typical side effects. Bottom line, from my scorecard, had Canelo won the last round, the fight would have been a draw. Crawford dominating in the 12th round was the coup de gras and ensured Canelo lost the fight. When my scorecard matches the judges, I think we were all watching the same thing. I also think that Vegas doesn't see any long term value in Canelo anymore, which is why you got some fair score cards, unlike in Bivol and the Golovkin fights. When Canelo was younger, he still had many years to generate revenue for the city and state. Now, as an asset, he's lost value, kind of like a car with too many miles on it. Had this been a younger Canelo, I think Bud would have been robbed. But also, I think Canelo would have been a little sharper than he was last night. I think the Canelo that beat Danny Jacobs might have beat Crawford here. Anyway, it was a good fight. Glad we're not talking about a robbery today.

I dont think they do it to sell rematches. I think there are a couple factors at play that are really just a matter of human nature and that I think all judges and sports officials fall victim to subconsciously. One is that a wide score card stands out, and thats risky to stand out as you might be wrong. Think of it this way, if Adelaide Byrd had scored Canelo-GGG I 7-5 for Canelo would she have been investigated? Of course not- people may have called it rigged, but it was a close fight and a close card is a safe bet. Officials in all sports do this, whistles even out (even if they shouldn't) because refs don't want to be seen as bias. Not saying this is done intentionally, its human nature and subconsciously its risk aversion. Judges by nature will regress to as close to 6-6 as possible. Along those lines, Max Kellerman made a comment last night that I think a lot of judges tend to follow. He said something along the lines that, 'the later rounds will show us if what we thought we saw in the earlier rounds was true.' I think judges feel this sometimes. Though they are supposed to score each round individually, there is a tendency to try and keep it close early on in case the fighter they thought was losing comes on strong. Maybe Canelo's body shots in the early round were doing more damage than they thought- they don't want to have him too far behind if he starts dominating late. Its somewhat like trying to score the whole fight and not the round. Once again, not saying its intentional, just human nature. Lastly, there is the tendency to score rounds relative to earlier rounds. If Bud won a couple rounds in a row clearly, but then the next round Canelo did better than in the previous two (though not good enough to win just better than he was doing previously) there is a tendency to view him as winning that round. Its somewhat like a 3-0 strike zone in baseball, though thats as much a mix between the previous reason and this one. You add all this up, mix in the horribly ambiguous scoring criteria, and the fact that most fights are scheduled for even rounds, and its shocking we dont get far more draws than we already do. I watched on mute so I didn't hear this. Definitely gets me thinking now - I must be alone on this, but I was perplexed with how that Skipper guy, who I have never seen on a TV card before and I watch a lot (and many others commented the same) - he had TC up 4-0 immediately, like it was just 100% he won those rounds. Wasn't a whole to to judge there to give 4 in a row to the challenger imo. And now I see that quote from Max which is basically asking/telling the viewer to confirm was was set in earlier. I see you in the RbRs all the time, I know you watch all the fights so I trust your opinion - did you see 4-0 out the gate? are you familiar with Skipper?

the fact that 2 judges had canelo up after the 10th is insane. If Bud didnt win the last 2 rounds on their cards it ends a draw or a canelo win. RidiculousI picked Saul to win before the fight and thought to myself going into the championship rounds this guy has taken MAX 4 rounds realistically 3 In other words he needed a ko to win under free and fair judging

the fact that 2 judges had canelo up after the 10th is insane. If Bud didnt win the last 2 rounds on their cards it ends a draw or a canelo win. Ridiculous

I dont think they do it to sell rematches. I think there are a couple factors at play that are really just a matter of human nature and that I think all judges and sports officials fall victim to subconsciously. One is that a wide score card stands out, and thats risky to stand out as you might be wrong. Think of it this way, if Adelaide Byrd had scored Canelo-GGG I 7-5 for Canelo would she have been investigated? Of course not- people may have called it rigged, but it was a close fight and a close card is a safe bet. Officials in all sports do this, whistles even out (even if they shouldn't) because refs don't want to be seen as bias. Not saying this is done intentionally, its human nature and subconsciously its risk aversion. Judges by nature will regress to as close to 6-6 as possible. Along those lines, Max Kellerman made a comment last night that I think a lot of judges tend to follow. He said something along the lines that, 'the later rounds will show us if what we thought we saw in the earlier rounds was true.' I think judges feel this sometimes. Though they are supposed to score each round individually, there is a tendency to try and keep it close early on in case the fighter they thought was losing comes on strong. Maybe Canelo's body shots in the early round were doing more damage than they thought- they don't want to have him too far behind if he starts dominating late. Its somewhat like trying to score the whole fight and not the round. Once again, not saying its intentional, just human nature. Lastly, there is the tendency to score rounds relative to earlier rounds. If Bud won a couple rounds in a row clearly, but then the next round Canelo did better than in the previous two (though not good enough to win just better than he was doing previously) there is a tendency to view him as winning that round. Its somewhat like a 3-0 strike zone in baseball, though thats as much a mix between the previous reason and this one. You add all this up, mix in the horribly ambiguous scoring criteria, and the fact that most fights are scheduled for even rounds, and it’s shocking we dont get far more draws than we already do. cant wait for the day decentralized ai replaces human boxing judges:cool:

I dont think they do it to sell rematches. I think there are a couple factors at play that are really just a matter of human nature and that I think all judges and sports officials fall victim to subconsciously. One is that a wide score card stands out, and thats risky to stand out as you might be wrong. Think of it this way, if Adelaide Byrd had scored Canelo-GGG I 7-5 for Canelo would she have been investigated? Of course not- people may have called it rigged, but it was a close fight and a close card is a safe bet. Officials in all sports do this, whistles even out (even if they shouldn't) because refs don't want to be seen as bias. Not saying this is done intentionally, its human nature and subconsciously its risk aversion. Judges by nature will regress to as close to 6-6 as possible. Along those lines, Max Kellerman made a comment last night that I think a lot of judges tend to follow. He said something along the lines that, 'the later rounds will show us if what we thought we saw in the earlier rounds was true.' I think judges feel this sometimes. Though they are supposed to score each round individually, there is a tendency to try and keep it close early on in case the fighter they thought was losing comes on strong. Maybe Canelo's body shots in the early round were doing more damage than they thought- they don't want to have him too far behind if he starts dominating late. Its somewhat like trying to score the whole fight and not the round. Once again, not saying its intentional, just human nature. Lastly, there is the tendency to score rounds relative to earlier rounds. If Bud won a couple rounds in a row clearly, but then the next round Canelo did better than in the previous two (though not good enough to win just better than he was doing previously) there is a tendency to view him as winning that round. Its somewhat like a 3-0 strike zone in baseball, though thats as much a mix between the previous reason and this one. You add all this up, mix in the horribly ambiguous scoring criteria, and the fact that most fights are scheduled for even rounds, and its shocking we dont get far more draws than we already do.