Cj Ross:Most corrupt judge in my lifetime.

[billeau2]

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

Indeed.....Indeed.

[Humean]

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/...mayweather.htm

Yes you can brush it off by saying that someone can produce bad scorecards from time to time. It is not as easy to score a fight 'correctly' as boxing fans seem to suggest. For one thing there is not a clear and objectively correct standard of which you can compare a scorecard to, only the interpretations of others. Are you telling me that if you had to score a few hundred fights that you would not make mistakes? The level of arrogance of boxing fans when it comes to judging boxing judges is absolutely amazing. Every boxing fan thinks they could do a better job.

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?

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!!!

I do know how these things work and I explained how unlikely this story is in regards to Ross's scorecard. I was not bastardizing William of Ockham, I was using the principle of Ockham's razor correctly.

Also you actually have to argue to a conclusion, not just state things like you keep doing.

[BennyST]

Yes you can brush it off by saying that someone can produce bad scorecards from time to time. It is not as easy to score a fight 'correctly' as boxing fans seem to suggest. For one thing there is not a clear and objectively correct standard of which you can compare a scorecard to, only the interpretations of others. Are you telling me that if you had to score a few hundred fights that you would not make mistakes? The level of arrogance of boxing fans when it comes to judging boxing judges is absolutely amazing. Every boxing fan thinks they could do a better job.

Every boxing fan did do a better job you jackass.

Mistake? Just a simple mistake? Not of that type. There's a big difference between making a small, understandable mistake, scoring one obvious round wrong, missing a big punch etc. Everyone does make them. This wasn't just a mistake. Mistakes dont reoccur round after round after round, in two different fights. It wasnt remotely hard to score and she's a supposed professional. A mistake is a one off occurence, not a consistently repeating event. When you also tie that in with the Pac scorecard, again not remotely hard to score, you have complete, utter incompetence of staggering proportions or corruption, not a simple mistake.

What the **** are you anyway? Her son. **** off. Arguing that two of the worst scorecards that most people have ever seen and literally changed huge boxing outcomes(nearly did in Floyds case), in clear, easy to score fights, were just two small coincidental mistakes? How ****ing ignorant can you be mate? Get a ****ing clue.



Christ, I can't believe someone is actually arguing this. I can't believe I'm arguing back....

'Boxing fans are so arrogant! These were clearly simple, easy to make mistakes. It's hard to know what to do when one fighter lands all the punches and doesn't get hit in return at all. It's just kept happening in every round so much that it was clearly confusing. An honest mistake really. Twice.'

[billeau2]

Yes you can brush it off by saying that someone can produce bad scorecards from time to time. It is not as easy to score a fight 'correctly' as boxing fans seem to suggest. For one thing there is not a clear and objectively correct standard of which you can compare a scorecard to, only the interpretations of others. Are you telling me that if you had to score a few hundred fights that you would not make mistakes? The level of arrogance of boxing fans when it comes to judging boxing judges is absolutely amazing. Every boxing fan thinks they could do a better job.





I do know how these things work and I explained how unlikely this story is in regards to Ross's scorecard. I was not bastardizing William of Ockham, I was using the principle of Ockham's razor correctly.

Also you actually have to argue to a conclusion, not just state things like you keep doing.

No you made an ignorant statement regarding Ross, a statement showing that you do not understand the range of consequences a corrupt decision could have, and showing that you are unaware that corrupt judging is very probable in boxing.

Ocham is often misused in this case to use the principle of the simplest to suffice you would have to have correct understanding of what was involved in the first place. You don't seem to have that understanding.

PS look at your post to Benny for an example regarding the scope and skill required of a boxing judge.

[Hougigo]

She'd probably fit in in the early 1900's

[Daddy T]

Is this Humean guy CJ Ross' toy boy or something? Why would any boxing fan spend so much time and effort trying to defend that piece of shit judge CJ Ross??? I watched the fight with a ten yearold kid and a woman who had never before sat through a full fight ... both of them wanted Canelo to win ... both of them saw clearly that Floyd won ... but CJ Ross a supposed professional judge managed to **** it up? Apply Ocham's Razor to that and you have ...

(A)a ten yearold and somebody who has never before watched a full fight can score a fight better than a professional who has spent years and years studying how to judge fights yet somehow manages to make a dog's dinner out of it...

OR

(B)said professional knew EXACTLY what they were doing...

[joseph5620]

Yes you can brush it off by saying that someone can produce bad scorecards from time to time. It is not as easy to score a fight 'correctly' as boxing fans seem to suggest. For one thing there is not a clear and objectively correct standard of which you can compare a scorecard to, only the interpretations of others. Are you telling me that if you had to score a few hundred fights that you would not make mistakes? The level of arrogance of boxing fans when it comes to judging boxing judges is absolutely amazing. Every boxing fan thinks they could do a better job.





I do know how these things work and I explained how unlikely this story is in regards to Ross's scorecard. I was not bastardizing William of Ockham, I was using the principle of Ockham's razor correctly.

Also you actually have to argue to a conclusion, not just state things like you keep doing.

Sorry, but that simplistic view will never be acceptable in professional boxing. Which is why there was outrage/controversy and she stepped down. I don't know if you're just trying to be the contrarian but your logic and reasoning is blatantly ****** at this point.

[Humean]

Every boxing fan did do a better job you jackass.

Mistake? Just a simple mistake? Not of that type. There's a big difference between making a small, understandable mistake, scoring one obvious round wrong, missing a big punch etc. Everyone does make them. This wasn't just a mistake. Mistakes dont reoccur round after round after round, in two different fights. It wasnt remotely hard to score and she's a supposed professional. A mistake is a one off occurence, not a consistently repeating event. When you also tie that in with the Pac scorecard, again not remotely hard to score, you have complete, utter incompetence of staggering proportions or corruption, not a simple mistake.

What the **** are you anyway? Her son. **** off. Arguing that two of the worst scorecards that most people have ever seen and literally changed huge boxing outcomes(nearly did in Floyds case), in clear, easy to score fights, were just two small coincidental mistakes? How ****ing ignorant can you be mate? Get a ****ing clue.



Christ, I can't believe someone is actually arguing this. I can't believe I'm arguing back....

'Boxing fans are so arrogant! These were clearly simple, easy to make mistakes. It's hard to know what to do when one fighter lands all the punches and doesn't get hit in return at all. It's just kept happening in every round so much that it was clearly confusing. An honest mistake really. Twice.'

1. Isn't name calling the prerogative of children rather than grown men?

2. Her scorecard was definitely bad but how many bad scorecards do you think you'd produce if you had judged 300-400 fights? I suppose you would score them all perfectly?

3. Yes two honest mistakes, you've never made mistakes in your life? You cannot name any mistakes you have made in either your personal or professional life? You write as if human beings making mistakes is somehow a unique and unlikely occurrence. Reading a few of your forum posts, including this one that i'm replying to, is ample evidence enough of the mistakes people can make!

4. My argument was never that C.J Ross was a good and competent judge, that her scorecard in the Mayweather, or indeed the Pacquiao - Bradley fight, was anything less than wrong, but rather that corruption is not the most likely explanation for it.

4. Thanks for amusing me by how angry you are getting over this.

[Humean]

No you made an ignorant statement regarding Ross, a statement showing that you do not understand the range of consequences a corrupt decision could have, and showing that you are unaware that corrupt judging is very probable in boxing.

Ocham is often misused in this case to use the principle of the simplest to suffice you would have to have correct understanding of what was involved in the first place. You don't seem to have that understanding.

PS look at your post to Benny for an example regarding the scope and skill required of a boxing judge.

So very probable in the top levels of boxing today that there has been a multitude of criminal and/or civil law suits been perpetrated against American boxing judges..... oh wait that isn't actually the case is it? This is why I suggested that the corruption argument is something of a conspiracy theory.

You don't even know what you are talking about in regards to Ockham's razor.

Sorry, but that simplistic view will never be acceptable in professional boxing. Which is why there was outrage/controversy and she stepped down. I don't know if you're just trying to be the contrarian but your logic and reasoning is blatantly ****** at this point.

Boxing judges are not ever allowed to make mistakes? I'm not saying that C.J. Ross should be judging boxing anymore, especially not the very biggest fights, but the way boxing fans talk about boxing judging it seems that every time a judge produces a scorecard that is either wrong, or one that the fans simply disagree with, then they react like little children who have not been allowed to play with their toys. Judges are human beings like everyone else, that can make mistakes, if they keep making said mistakes, especially in the biggest fights, then they of course need to be demoted or sacked like in every other profession but it is just not possible for judges to score correctly every time. In this particular case the furore has been particularly pathetic when you consider it did not alter the result, the right man got the decision. There is a reason for having more than one judge after all.

[billeau2]

So very probable in the top levels of boxing today that there has been a multitude of criminal and/or civil law suits been perpetrated against American boxing judges..... oh wait that isn't actually the case is it? This is why I suggested that the corruption argument is something of a conspiracy theory.

You don't even know what you are talking about in regards to Ockham's razor.



Boxing judges are not ever allowed to make mistakes? I'm not saying that C.J. Ross should be judging boxing anymore, especially not the very biggest fights, but the way boxing fans talk about boxing judging it seems that every time a judge produces a scorecard that is either wrong, or one that the fans simply disagree with, then they react like little children who have not been allowed to play with their toys. Judges are human beings like everyone else, that can make mistakes, if they keep making said mistakes, especially in the biggest fights, then they of course need to be demoted or sacked like in every other profession but it is just not possible for judges to score correctly every time. In this particular case the furore has been particularly pathetic when you consider it did not alter the result, the right man got the decision. There is a reason for having more than one judge after all.

I taught Ockham's razor college level jac. Your niave idiocy once agian reigns supreme...keep putting your shovel to the ground instead of admitting ignorance go ahead. So now if something is not pressed legally it does not exist? thats too ****** to even address. Corruption has been a very real problem and the legal system often has to catch up to it to persecute...ever heard of RICO Jack? It took the entire mob down and before this law was passed? Corruption and actual conspiracy to participate in murder was virtually unprosecutable.

So there is an example that shows your ignorance and a scenerio (vis a vis Ockham haha)that shows your ignorance is that enough of an argument with a premise or do you want to keep digging jac?

on ps, I would say quit while you are not behind but in this case? quit while you still have a behind!