Cj Ross:Most corrupt judge in my lifetime.

[violaandme]

I also find it funny that a judge can go years and years only doing WBC title fights like Micky Vann and Harry Gibbs if you look at their fights they are all WBC title fights Gibbs retired 20 years ago now but Mickey Vann still does WBC title fights and has for 30 years now including a 115-115 draw for Pernell Whitaker vs Chavez

[BennyST]

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 cuan explain C.J Ross's poor scorecard, rather than having to rely upon conspiracy theories based on practically zero evidence.

At least make sense. All the evidence I need is her score cards. I don't need her bank details and personal information. Bringing it up as if that somehow proves anything is daft.

Why do you keep randomly bringing up Occam's razor theory as if it proves something also? It doesn't, and if anything actually suggests the opposite of what you want.

The amount of assumptions necessary for a professional judge to score not just one, but two cards, entirely wrong, against every scoring boxing criteria and contrary to 99% of professional and public opinion suggest that plain old idiocy is in fact the most unlikely assumption and that it would be as simple as money. What drives boxing Humean? Money. What does everyone involved with it want more of? Money. Why was this one of the largest fights in history and one of the biggest sporting events in the world? The amount of money involved for people betting and watching. Evidence of corruption, or my personal lack thereof, has nothing to do with this or Occam's razor ie logical, deductive reasoning.



What do you think it takes for a judge to be bribed today? Double the 8k she was being paid? Triple?

If you truly believe that not much can be made off a MD, when the overwhelming odds are in favour of a UD, you really don't have a clue how such a scam works or how much money is involved. It's not rocket science and it can net you a lot more than you obviously think, and more than enough to get a crooked judge to stay crooked. Did you not hear about the betting scamming that was if news before the fight and how much so much money was suddenly being placed on a draw that bookies nearly took it if the table, because of betting scams?

You place small enough bets throughout the country via many means on your knowledgeable outcome that don't change the odds and what you eventually end up with adds up. People do this for a living mate and that's just the simplest way.

They aren't placing bets of a couple of thousand. We are talking tens of thousands at the very least. Millions upon millions upon millions are up and about on the table for such an event. When you start getting up there, and a seemingly minor event can change even money to an absurd gain, it's natural to get it done. Those people that run things aren't in for the love of boxing mate. They aren't fans. They are in it for the money. I think that's what you don't quite get. It's how it is done and it takes place for every sporting event, worldwide, every day. The bigger the event, the more corruption because the more money is involved. Occam's razor mate. Betting is a business based on corruption and greed. That's the simplest, most logical assumption.

Saying that its not worth it to get one judge on side to change the favoured outcome to an outcome of much lower odds is about as smart as saying it doesn't matter if a favoured horse finishes first, second, third because there will still be lots of people with a placing bet despite all those with a win bet.

The lower the odds, the better. But, if you can't actually get the fighter onside to take a dive, how do you change it? The judges and ref. The ref can have a small effect on the fight, but a judge can change the outcome nearly as surely as the fighter. With a fight that is sure as this to go to the cards, and a winner nearly certain, the odds of the type of decision become pivotal to those whose living is based on this. Don't forget, its not just small time fans who gamble that do this. It's people who bet and gamble for a living and thus do everything to change the outcome to a favoured one for them, which means winning on the lowest odds.

Anyway, like I said. If you don't get it, you don't get it. It's nice that some people can still think corruption is a minor aspect of vegas ********, sports betting and boxing.

[Humean]

At least make sense. All the evidence I need is her score cards. I don't need her bank details and personal information. Bringing it up as if that somehow proves anything is daft.

Why do you keep randomly bringing up Occam's razor theory as if it proves something also? It doesn't, and if anything actually suggests the opposite of what you want.

The amount of assumptions necessary for a professional judge to score not just one, but two cards, entirely wrong, against every scoring boxing criteria and contrary to 99% of professional and public opinion suggest that plain old idiocy is in fact the most unlikely assumption and that it would be as simple as money. What drives boxing Humean? Money. What does everyone involved with it want more of? Money. Why was this one of the largest fights in history and one of the biggest sporting events in the world? The amount of money involved for people betting and watching. Evidence of corruption, or my personal lack thereof, has nothing to do with this or Occam's razor ie logical, deductive reasoning.



What do you think it takes for a judge to be bribed today? Double the 8k she was being paid? Triple?

If you truly believe that not much can be made off a MD, when the overwhelming odds are in favour of a UD, you really don't have a clue how such a scam works or how much money is involved. It's not rocket science and it can net you a lot more than you obviously think, and more than enough to get a crooked judge to stay crooked. Did you not hear about the betting scamming that was if news before the fight and how much so much money was suddenly being placed on a draw that bookies nearly took it if the table, because of betting scams?

You place small enough bets throughout the country via many means on your knowledgeable outcome that don't change the odds and what you eventually end up with adds up. People do this for a living mate and that's just the simplest way.

They aren't placing bets of a couple of thousand. We are talking tens of thousands at the very least. Millions upon millions upon millions are up and about on the table for such an event. When you start getting up there, and a seemingly minor event can change even money to an absurd gain, it's natural to get it done. Those people that run things aren't in for the love of boxing mate. They aren't fans. They are in it for the money. I think that's what you don't quite get. It's how it is done and it takes place for every sporting event, worldwide, every day. The bigger the event, the more corruption because the more money is involved. Occam's razor mate. Betting is a business based on corruption and greed. That's the simplest, most logical assumption.

Saying that its not worth it to get one judge on side to change the favoured outcome to an outcome of much lower odds is about as smart as saying it doesn't matter if a favoured horse finishes first, second, third because there will still be lots of people with a placing bet despite all those with a win bet.

The lower the odds, the better. But, if you can't actually get the fighter onside to take a dive, how do you change it? The judges and ref. The ref can have a small effect on the fight, but a judge can change the outcome nearly as surely as the fighter. With a fight that is sure as this to go to the cards, and a winner nearly certain, the odds of the type of decision become pivotal to those whose living is based on this. Don't forget, its not just small time fans who gamble that do this. It's people who bet and gamble for a living and thus do everything to change the outcome to a favoured one for them, which means winning on the lowest odds.

Anyway, like I said. If you don't get it, you don't get it. It's nice that some people can still think corruption is a minor aspect of vegas ********, sports betting and boxing.

How can you not see that a bad scorecard is very weak evidence? You must be in the habit of forming beliefs based on almost no evidence whatsoever. I bring up Ockham's razor because there are simpler explanations that your explanation, explanations that do not need so many assumptions to explain what needs to be explained. You are failing to understand the many elements that are involved, the many assumptions you are having to make. It is not as simple as saying that money drives boxing. Your explanations involve a criminal act, called fraud. It involves a professional judge with a significant enough reputation to have been given the job of judging the biggest fight of the year(s) in boxing. You are having to contend that not only were there criminals offering her the bribe but that she actually accepted it. You are the having to explain the rationality of even bothering to do this in light of the betting odds. Essentially all you have done is make a criminal accusation based on pretty much zero evidence, and you wonder why I am dis*****g your claims? Are you in the habit of accusing people of crimes in your ordinary life?

Now the odds on this fight were significantly closer than typical Mayweather fights, the most likely explanation is because Mayweather is 36 and was fighting a young man who was not only very good but outweighed him quite considerably. As for your comments on how much to bribe a judge, again you are displaying great simplicity of thought here. The risk for the judge is being caught which at best involves the cost of losing her job and at worse getting either sued or prison time. I think it would take quite a substantial bribe indeed. The point about evidence of her financial situation is because someone might of course accept a lower bribe if they were desperate for the money. You think you don't need any of this information, well that is because for some reason you think it is perfectly fine to accuse people of crimes without any actual evidence to back it up.

Now from the perspective of the would be bribers then surely there was more that could conceivably be achieved by bribing more than one judge or getting the judge to score for Canelo to get a split decision. Imagine you are a criminal and want to fix a fight, do you bribe one judge to score a draw when the odds on an MD Mayweather, odds which only I suppose illegal US bookmakers would be generally accepting odds on, when you could bribe more judges for better results? Think of the odds for the various Canelo decision wins. Again your reasoning is falling quite ludicrously flat. You have not even begun to think this through!

How can you possibly think that all this is more likely than C.J Ross just scoring the fight badly. The judging of fights is not a science, I know her scoring seems ridiculous but I bet we would all produce terrible scorecards from time to time if we were professional judges. Human error is pretty pervasive after all.

Also: Ockham's razor is a heuristic principle of simplicity or parsimony and we are engaging in inductive, not deductive, reasoning.

[joseph5620]

How can you not see that a bad scorecard is very weak evidence? You must be in the habit of forming beliefs based on almost no evidence whatsoever. I bring up Ockham's razor because there are simpler explanations that your explanation, explanations that do not need so many assumptions to explain what needs to be explained. You are failing to understand the many elements that are involved, the many assumptions you are having to make. It is not as simple as saying that money drives boxing. Your explanations involve a criminal act, called fraud. It involves a professional judge with a significant enough reputation to have been given the job of judging the biggest fight of the year(s) in boxing. You are having to contend that not only were there criminals offering her the bribe but that she actually accepted it. You are the having to explain the rationality of even bothering to do this in light of the betting odds. Essentially all you have done is make a criminal accusation based on pretty much zero evidence, and you wonder why I am dis*****g your claims? Are you in the habit of accusing people of crimes in your ordinary life?

Now the odds on this fight were significantly closer than typical Mayweather fights, the most likely explanation is because Mayweather is 36 and was fighting a young man who was not only very good but outweighed him quite considerably. As for your comments on how much to bribe a judge, again you are displaying great simplicity of thought here. The risk for the judge is being caught which at best involves the cost of losing her job and at worse getting either sued or prison time. I think it would take quite a substantial bribe indeed. The point about evidence of her financial situation is because someone might of course accept a lower bribe if they were desperate for the money. You think you don't need any of this information, well that is because for some reason you think it is perfectly fine to accuse people of crimes without any actual evidence to back it up.

Now from the perspective of the would be bribers then surely there was more that could conceivably be achieved by bribing more than one judge or getting the judge to score for Canelo to get a split decision. Imagine you are a criminal and want to fix a fight, do you bribe one judge to score a draw when the odds on an MD Mayweather, odds which only I suppose illegal US bookmakers would be generally accepting odds on, when you could bribe more judges for better results? Think of the odds for the various Canelo decision wins. Again your reasoning is falling quite ludicrously flat. You have not even begun to think this through!

How can you possibly think that all this is more likely than C.J Ross just scoring the fight badly. The judging of fights is not a science, I know her scoring seems ridiculous but I bet we would all produce terrible scorecards from time to time if we were professional judges. Human error is pretty pervasive after all.

Also: Ockham's razor is a heuristic principle of simplicity or parsimony and we are engaging in inductive, not deductive, reasoning.

She had a bad reputation going into the fight which raised eyebrows about her appointment before she put out the bad score. This was not her first or even second time doing this. There are multiple other scorecards from her that show a pattern. When you are paid to do a job on a professional level you can't just brush it off as "oh it's just ridiculous scoring from time to time." That in itself is ridiculous. This is a professional sport involving careers and millions of dollars. A child could have scored that fight so lets not pretend that it was difficult to score.

Following that, she did exactly what many suspected she would do with her bizarre scorecard. There is such a thing as over analyzing when it's as simple as night and day.





Obviously this is a serious issue for the NSAC and goes beyond simple conspiracy theories. It's not just me.

http://www.boxingscene.com/more-details-on-cj-ross-taking-leave-absence--69729

http://www.latinospost.com/articles/27796/20130917/boxing-news-nsac-review-c-j-ross-controversial-scoring-mayweather.htm

[billeau2]

Have you any evidence of corruption apart from bad scorecards? It was an incompetent scorecard which certainly calls into question her getting to judge the biggest fights but what corruption are you seeing? What sort of corruption do you think there is when only one of the judges saw it a draw and the other two for the correct man? I don't think you have thought this through.

Humean after david Hume I presume? Well mr Hume lets take a page from the Pragmatist William James' playbook shall we?

Mr James was wont to say: Whether the Barn burned down, or a Barbq feast was prepared....Roast Pork is Roast Pork...

Do you catch my drift regarding this corrupt,errr ******, err whatever!!! judge?

[billeau2]

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.

you clearly do not understand how ********, hedging and odds work regarding the knowledge that a judge has inclinations fair enough....

BUT PLEASE STOP BASTERDIZING WILLIAM OF OCKHAM!!!

[CJRock]

try Eugenia Williams card when she claimed vander beat lennox in lewis-holy 1
that was a travesty. she still judges tho but goes by gene Williams now

[Scott9945]

try Eugenia Williams card when she claimed vander beat lennox in lewis-holy 1
that was a travesty. she still judges tho but goes by gene Williams now

She gave round 5 to Holyfield, a round which could have been scored 10-8 for Lewis. Nobody can be that incompetent.

[joseph5620]

She gave round 5 to Holyfield, a round which could have been scored 10-8 for Lewis. Nobody can be that incompetent.

I forgot that she scored round 5 for Holyfield. That was absolutely disgusting.

[Daddy T]

the missus had never before watched a full fight and really wanted canelo to win due to major floyd hate syndrome ... she left before the score cards were announced cause she didn't want to see floyd celebrating ... she knew he'd won and NEVER watched a fight before and I'm supposed to believe Ross thought it was a draw????

Cj Ross is corrupt and was paid off, there is no two ways about it.