Cj Ross:Most corrupt judge in my lifetime.

[StarshipTrooper]

(c) Two people in this thread alone felt a draw could be argued so there are likely a lot more out there.

Don't confuse ******s posting in the round by round thread in NSB for people who actually know what the **** they're talking about.

[BKM-2010]

Apparently her scoring cost a lot of people money because some of the bookmakers take different types of decision wins into account. I don't know if this is a fact but this would mean that if this was a screwjob then she succeeded.

[Daddy T]

I wanted canelo to win ... that's my bias going in ... I was screaming for him to land ... how many rounds did I give to him??? ... I dunno 1 maybe 2 rounds??? And tbh I'm not even sure about them.

she was clearly bought off. People betting for a floyd UD missed out

[deadlywill]

[BennyST]

No you haven't thought it through because if there is corruption with judges then surely it would be a bribe to the judges to score for one fighter but having one judge in your pocket is not sufficient to get the desired result, you need two. On top of that she didn't score for Canelo, she scored a draw. Thus incompetence is surely the correct view, for no other reason than Ockham's razor.

Do you have any idea of the odds for a UD for Floyd in Vegas? One judge scoring a draw is a big, big thing and would get a lot of people a lot of money. You gotta look into ******** and odds mate. **** like this makes all the difference.

[BennyST]

Bribing judges was certainly common in the US at least in the 1940s and 50s when Frankie Carbo and the mob effectively controlled boxing but your previous post makes very little sense. If you are actually going to the bother of fixing a fight then you do not bribe only one judge and bribe her to score it a draw. If there was corruption here then it would have to be a candidate for the dumbest and least effective form of boxing corruption imaginable. Are you acquainted with Ockham's razor?

C.J Ross produced an incompetent scorecard, a claim that perhaps no reasonable person can dispute but there are more rational explanations for why that was possible. In her mind she probably saw the fight the way she scored it, but maybe she had some prejudices, probably unconscious. Maybe she dislikes wife beaters or has a penchant for red headed men. Who knows, but out and out corruption seems the least likely explanation.

Seriously mate, you need to understand odds and ********. Changing the entire outcome of a fight is unnecessary and often too difficult. Changing what is seen as a near guarantee, in this case Floyd being a massive favourite to win by UD, to a divided view will net certain people in the know a ****ing ****load of money. Enough money for them to bribe one judge to make sure a UD doesn't happen.

That's all it takes.

As for out and out corruption seeming unlikely, what goddamn world do you live in? This is boxing mate. Don't be so absurdly naive. Corruption is rampant and takes place in every nook and cranny, from the highest place to the lowest. It's undoubtedly among the most corrupt sports in the world, bar none.

It's not unlikely, it's a certainty. I always find it funny when people genuinely think that this stuff doesn't happen. Maybe you need to have seen it first hand, or have experienced it somehow to really understand just how prevalent it is.

If you really think its just an unfortunate coincidence that she happened to score these two fights for the underdog in impossible circumstances, I admire your naive innocence in this corrupt world. Keep it as long as possible. Ignorance is bliss.

[New England]

Apparently her scoring cost a lot of people money because some of the bookmakers take different types of decision wins into account. I don't know if this is a fact but this would mean that if this was a screwjob then she succeeded.

i was @ mgm, and the only odds they offered were the over/under, picking rounds, win / lose bets for odds, and picking the outcome of the fight.


i picked "mayweather decision" and the outcome wasn't effected. i'm led to believe that the MGM didn't ahve a ton of odds for the fight, but with bookies that "MD" distinction was very important.


ross is without a doubt corrupt in my mind. a little kid could score that fight.



the scariest part to me is that keith kaizer, of the athletic commission in nevada, didn't think she needed to be looked into. that's what you call corruption.



if you knew that CJ ross was going to be a total bonehead and give the decision to alvarez or make it a draw on her card, you could make a killing if you were allowed to bet that prop. a killing.

[Humean]

Seriously mate, you need to understand odds and ********. Changing the entire outcome of a fight is unnecessary and often too difficult. Changing what is seen as a near guarantee, in this case Floyd being a massive favourite to win by UD, to a divided view will net certain people in the know a ****ing ****load of money. Enough money for them to bribe one judge to make sure a UD doesn't happen.

That's all it takes.

As for out and out corruption seeming unlikely, what goddamn world do you live in? This is boxing mate. Don't be so absurdly naive. Corruption is rampant and takes place in every nook and cranny, from the highest place to the lowest. It's undoubtedly among the most corrupt sports in the world, bar none.

It's not unlikely, it's a certainty. I always find it funny when people genuinely think that this stuff doesn't happen. Maybe you need to have seen it first hand, or have experienced it somehow to really understand just how prevalent it is.

If you really think its just an unfortunate coincidence that she happened to score these two fights for the underdog in impossible circumstances, I admire your naive innocence in this corrupt world. Keep it as long as possible. Ignorance is bliss.

1. I am aware of betting odds, I gamble myself.

2. Historically boxing has been highly corrupt, where is the evidence of such corruption, at least at the highest level, today? Having a judge score different to what most others had is very weak evidence indeed.

3. The odds of a non-unanimous decision in Mayweather's favour would not be especially high, hardly worth bribing a judge for especially with the amount it would most likely take to actually bribe a judge in this day and age, unless of course you have some evidence about C.J Ross being highly in debt or such like? You don't have that evidence? What a surprise. You chastised me for not being aware of betting odds but it is clear that it is you that is unfamiliar with them.

4. Naivety is certainly not desirable but I am not naive, corruption is certainly possible today but there are good reasons why it is far less common than it used to be. However what is even worse than naivety is an unability to actually think through what you are saying. You are not showing a lack of naivety, you are showing a lack of thought.

5. Ockham's razor suggests that are other explanations that can explain C.J Ross's poor scorecard, rather than having to rely upon conspiracy theories based on practically zero evidence.

[Bodyshot3]

CJ Ross......even Adelaide Byrd is embarassed by that card.

[violaandme]

Newton Campos should be on any bad judge list since he was on Jose Suliaman's work force at least he must have been for one fight in 1988 any judge that could score a fight 118-113 Jose Louis Ramerez vs Pernell Whitaker when the score should have been reversed to 113-118 or even 110-118 that is obscene that he judged fights for another 10 years before he retired

as far as CJ Ross goes I know they have evaluators for football, baketball, baseball officials to make sure they are doing a reasonable job do they not have these people in place for boxing if not there should be at least for extreme discrepancies like these when one judge sees it so different than the other two