Cj Ross:Most corrupt judge in my lifetime.

[StarshipTrooper]

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!

Boom! Headshot!

[BennyST]

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.

The prerogative of children? I'm pretty sure that you'll find 'name calling' isn't the prerogative of anyone oh righteous high and mighty one. Pretty much used across the board mate, certainly more by adults than children though. I do love the 'you're childish for calling me names! Boo hoo' reply though, especially from a guy living in Scotland. On a boxing forum too.

If a bad word or two hurts your feelings or offends your sensibilities why not trot off to the academia section of the boxing forum with the other toffs? Oh wait, there isn't one.

Inane, repetitive arguments that ignore reality....that's what I might call more childish.

I've realised though that you're one of these champion guys that argue for the sake of argument. You'd argue something pointless into the ground against all reason just for the sake of it. ****ish.

I don't really think you understand what a mistake is though mate. Maybe you repeat mistakes over and over and over against all common sense, but most normal people don't. If you drove a car down the wrong side of the road and crashed into someone, that's probably a mistake. Once. If you did that more than once, missing all the obvious signs saying not to, it's not mistake anymore. You're either psychotically deluded or trying to kill yourself or someone else.

If you scored an extra round or two for Canelo, despite him clearly, against all normal judgement, all public and professional opinion, all boxing scoring criteria, all obvious common sense and reason, and against the most obvious thing, he got hit a lot and didn't hit Mayweather back at all, then its slightly understandable, but if you nearly score the fight for him, did in Bradley's case.....

[Daddy T]

human's argument comes down to anyone can make one mistake
and that's fair enough ... one round called atrociously yeah? hell let's allow her 2 mistakes ... so two rounds in the same fight called atrociously


Last I checked though this fight was over 12 rounds...

[Humean]

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!

I believe you, your prose is clearly the standard of a college lecturer. Of course I have heard of RICO, again just stating things does not substantiate anything, ever tried a proper argument? Your post actually shows you do not understand Ockham's razor, stop embarrassing yourself.

The prerogative of children? I'm pretty sure that you'll find 'name calling' isn't the prerogative of anyone oh righteous high and mighty one. Pretty much used across the board mate, certainly more by adults than children though. I do love the 'you're childish for calling me names! Boo hoo' reply though, especially from a guy living in Scotland. On a boxing forum too.

If a bad word or two hurts your feelings or offends your sensibilities why not trot off to the academia section of the boxing forum with the other toffs? Oh wait, there isn't one.

Inane, repetitive arguments that ignore reality....that's what I might call more childish.

I've realised though that you're one of these champion guys that argue for the sake of argument. You'd argue something pointless into the ground against all reason just for the sake of it. ****ish.

I don't really think you understand what a mistake is though mate. Maybe you repeat mistakes over and over and over against all common sense, but most normal people don't. If you drove a car down the wrong side of the road and crashed into someone, that's probably a mistake. Once. If you did that more than once, missing all the obvious signs saying not to, it's not mistake anymore. You're either psychotically deluded or trying to kill yourself or someone else.

If you scored an extra round or two for Canelo, despite him clearly, against all normal judgement, all public and professional opinion, all boxing scoring criteria, all obvious common sense and reason, and against the most obvious thing, he got hit a lot and didn't hit Mayweather back at all, then its slightly understandable, but if you nearly score the fight for him, did in Bradley's case.....

It is pretty amusing to suggest that someone who disagrees with you is both an idiot and also is somehow academically inclined. I'm not offended by you calling me names, go right ahead, i'm just puzzled by why a grown adult cannot argue without such recourse to name calling, it is childish and lowers the quality of the debate. I'm sure it makes you feel very manly calling people names online being the fearsome internet gangster that you are.

You are perfectly correct that I have been repetitive, but that is because you and others have failed to actually respond to my arguments. Find a textbook or some study of organized crime as it exists today in America, you will find that boxing is no longer a domain in which organized crime has much headway in, at least at the top end of the sport. The heyday of organized crime activity was the late 1940s until Carbo and Palermo were jailed in 1961. If you actually read into that period you would understand the elements that were in play that allowed for this to occur. The charge of corruption in boxing today is largely a response borne from ignorance, it is an seemingly easy explanation that has almost zero basis in reality but luckily there are other simpler explanations that can explain the way judges get it wrong. Unfortunately you do not seem to want to understand these reasons but that is fine, you can believe whatever you want regardless of how wrong it is. Some people however prefer to attune their beliefs to the truth.

I await your next thrilling reply.

[billeau2]

I believe you, your prose is clearly the standard of a college lecturer. Of course I have heard of RICO, again just stating things does not substantiate anything, ever tried a proper argument? Your post actually shows you do not understand Ockham's razor, stop embarrassing yourself.





It is pretty amusing to suggest that someone who disagrees with you is both an idiot and also is somehow academically inclined. I'm not offended by you calling me names, go right ahead, i'm just puzzled by why a grown adult cannot argue without such recourse to name calling, it is childish and lowers the quality of the debate. I'm sure it makes you feel very manly calling people names online being the fearsome internet gangster that you are.

You are perfectly correct that I have been repetitive, but that is because you and others have failed to actually respond to my arguments. Find a textbook or some study of organized crime as it exists today in America, you will find that boxing is no longer a domain in which organized crime has much headway in, at least at the top end of the sport. The heyday of organized crime activity was the late 1940s until Carbo and Palermo were jailed in 1961. If you actually read into that period you would understand the elements that were in play that allowed for this to occur. The charge of corruption in boxing today is largely a response borne from ignorance, it is an seemingly easy explanation that has almost zero basis in reality but luckily there are other simpler explanations that can explain the way judges get it wrong. Unfortunately you do not seem to want to understand these reasons but that is fine, you can believe whatever you want regardless of how wrong it is. Some people however prefer to attune their beliefs to the truth.

I await your next thrilling reply.

Ever heard if inference? Like.....I give an example to show what nonsense you came up with and leave the conclusion up to you? apparently not. I don't mind kicking you around a bit because I have found the net is full of idiots that can't admit when they are wrong.... you need a good thrashing.

Your hypocracy: Your argument amounts to: "you don't know what your talking about." so pot calling kettle black have we?

Your insolence: It was explained multiple times that there was indeed a way that Ross' decision could materially affect a fight for betting lines...which also (incidently) showed you the fallicy of applying William of Ockham's Heustic guidelines.

Heres the thing: I have been wrong on occasion and I admit it. Your type can't....grow up. Or don't because watching you break down and resort to the same things you were initially basing your critiscisms on is great fun....whats next? my bad spelling? jackoff

Oh and PS: I actually quite deliberatly did not lecture my philosophy class material....I taught, debated and exchanged with students... for the record.

[BennyST]

The prerogative of children? I'm pretty sure that you'll find 'name calling' isn't the prerogative of anyone oh righteous high and mighty one. Pretty much used across the board mate, certainly more by adults than children though. I do love the 'you're childish for calling me names! Boo hoo' reply though, especially from a guy living in Scotland. On a boxing forum too.

If a bad word or two hurts your feelings or offends your sensibilities why not trot off to the academia section of the boxing forum with the other toffs? Oh wait, there isn't one.

Inane, repetitive arguments that ignore reality....that's what I might call more childish.

I've realised though that you're one of these champion guys that argue for the sake of argument. You'd argue something pointless into the ground against all reason just for the sake of it. ****ish.

I don't really think you understand what a mistake is though mate. Maybe you repeat mistakes over and over and over against all common sense, but most normal people don't. If you drove a car down the wrong side of the road and crashed into someone, that's probably a mistake. Once. If you did that more than once, missing all the obvious signs saying not to, it's not mistake anymore. You're either psychotically deluded or trying to kill yourself or someone else.

If you scored an extra round or two for Canelo, despite him clearly, against all normal judgement, all public and professional opinion, all boxing scoring criteria, all obvious common sense and reason, and against the most obvious thing, he got hit a lot and didn't hit Mayweather back at all, then its slightly understandable, but if you nearly score the fight for him, did in Bradley's case.....

It is pretty amusing to suggest that someone who disagrees with you is both an idiot and also is somehow academically inclined. I'm not offended by you calling me names, go right ahead, i'm just puzzled by why a grown adult cannot argue without such recourse to name calling, it is childish and lowers the quality of the debate. I'm sure it makes you feel very manly calling people names online being the fearsome internet gangster that you are.

You are perfectly correct that I have been repetitive, but that is because you and others have failed to actually respond to my arguments. Find a textbook or some study of organized crime as it exists today in America, you will find that boxing is no longer a domain in which organized crime has much headway in, at least at the top end of the sport. The heyday of organized crime activity was the late 1940s until Carbo and Palermo were jailed in 1961. If you actually read into that period you would understand the elements that were in play that allowed for this to occur. The charge of corruption in boxing today is largely a response borne from ignorance, it is an seemingly easy explanation that has almost zero basis in reality but luckily there are other simpler explanations that can explain the way judges get it wrong. Unfortunately you do not seem to want to understand these reasons but that is fine, you can believe whatever you want regardless of how wrong it is. Some people however prefer to attune their beliefs to the truth.

I await your next thrilling reply.

Oh god....you're really going there? So, from all that, the best you could come up with in response is to ramble on about being called names, and that I'm trying to be a fearsome Internet gangster? Thats honestly what you took from that first post above? Why not just reply with 'sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me' and be done with it? ****ing hell.

Then you randomly bring up utterly unrelated stuff about 40's corruption and organised crime stats in boxing as if it has any bearing on two scorecards by CJ Ross today.

Christ in heaven....come on mate. Get over it and reply to the points brought up. Or maybe youre right....We're not reading into outside details enough here. We've got to go well off the point and overanalyse unrelated theories. You'd make a good politician mate. Waffle on pretending to answer something, without saying anything relevant at all, everyone tunes out and goes home.

I think you're kind of missing something here champ. If you think my above reply is trying to be a 'fearsome Internet gangster' and that all I'm doing is being childish, name calling and not debating, then I don't think you're actually reading anything that's being written, or maybe you're just reading very selectively.

Every answer you've given has to been replied to. Many times. You ignore it, move on to some other random, nonsensical reply that has nothing to do with anything, then start repeating yourself, again while saying no one is answering you, then finally fall back to some lame high horse bull**** that I'm trying to be a fearsome Internet gangster with all the brutal name calling I'm doing, threats of violence, finding where you live, beating you up, calling you out for a boxing fight and all the childish insults. Lighten the **** up mate. This isn't a college debate. It's a boxing forum. I'm not trying to be a fearsome gangster anything, nor am I trying to offend you. I don't care enough.

But yes, I agree then. Lets make a comparative discussion of the related details of 1940's organised crime and how it clearly relates to, and shows, that corruption doesn't exist in 2013 boxing and that organised crime stats of today show a clear delineation between corruption in boxing today, other crime ridden sports and that the cards of Ross were just age related mistakes.

Excellent. Case closed Sherlock. We're all in clear agreement. CJ Ross is an excellent professional judge of high character and these two cards were easily made, understandable mistakes that could/would have been made by anyone.

[Anthony342]

Oh god....you're really going there? So, from all that, the best you could come up with in response is to ramble on about being called names, and that I'm trying to be a fearsome Internet gangster? Thats honestly what you took from that first post above? Why not just reply with 'sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me' and be done with it? ****ing hell.

Then you randomly bring up utterly unrelated stuff about 40's corruption and organised crime stats in boxing as if it has any bearing on two scorecards by CJ Ross today.

Christ in heaven....come on mate. Get over it and reply to the points brought up. Or maybe youre right....We're not reading into outside details enough here. We've got to go well off the point and overanalyse unrelated theories. You'd make a good politician mate. Waffle on pretending to answer something, without saying anything relevant at all, everyone tunes out and goes home.

I think you're kind of missing something here champ. If you think my above reply is trying to be a 'fearsome Internet gangster' and that all I'm doing is being childish, name calling and not debating, then I don't think you're actually reading anything that's being written, or maybe you're just reading very selectively.

Every answer you've given has to been replied to. Many times. You ignore it, move on to some other random, nonsensical reply that has nothing to do with anything, then start repeating yourself, again while saying no one is answering you, then finally fall back to some lame high horse bull**** that I'm trying to be a fearsome Internet gangster with all the brutal name calling I'm doing, threats of violence, finding where you live, beating you up, calling you out for a boxing fight and all the childish insults. Lighten the **** up mate. This isn't a college debate. It's a boxing forum. I'm not trying to be a fearsome gangster anything, nor am I trying to offend you. I don't care enough.

But yes, I agree then. Lets make a comparative discussion of the related details of 1940's organised crime and how it clearly relates to, and shows, that corruption doesn't exist in 2013 boxing and that organised crime stats of today show a clear delineation between corruption in boxing today, other crime ridden sports and that the cards of Ross were just age related mistakes.

Excellent. Case closed Sherlock. We're all in clear agreement. CJ Ross is an excellent professional judge of high character and these two cards were easily made, understandable mistakes that could/would have been made by anyone.

This belongs in the classic posts thread.

[Humean]

Oh god....you're really going there? So, from all that, the best you could come up with in response is to ramble on about being called names, and that I'm trying to be a fearsome Internet gangster? Thats honestly what you took from that first post above? Why not just reply with 'sticks and stones might break my bones, but names will never hurt me' and be done with it? ****ing hell.

Then you randomly bring up utterly unrelated stuff about 40's corruption and organised crime stats in boxing as if it has any bearing on two scorecards by CJ Ross today.

Christ in heaven....come on mate. Get over it and reply to the points brought up. Or maybe youre right....We're not reading into outside details enough here. We've got to go well off the point and overanalyse unrelated theories. You'd make a good politician mate. Waffle on pretending to answer something, without saying anything relevant at all, everyone tunes out and goes home.

I think you're kind of missing something here champ. If you think my above reply is trying to be a 'fearsome Internet gangster' and that all I'm doing is being childish, name calling and not debating, then I don't think you're actually reading anything that's being written, or maybe you're just reading very selectively.

Every answer you've given has to been replied to. Many times. You ignore it, move on to some other random, nonsensical reply that has nothing to do with anything, then start repeating yourself, again while saying no one is answering you, then finally fall back to some lame high horse bull**** that I'm trying to be a fearsome Internet gangster with all the brutal name calling I'm doing, threats of violence, finding where you live, beating you up, calling you out for a boxing fight and all the childish insults. Lighten the **** up mate. This isn't a college debate. It's a boxing forum. I'm not trying to be a fearsome gangster anything, nor am I trying to offend you. I don't care enough.

But yes, I agree then. Lets make a comparative discussion of the related details of 1940's organised crime and how it clearly relates to, and shows, that corruption doesn't exist in 2013 boxing and that organised crime stats of today show a clear delineation between corruption in boxing today, other crime ridden sports and that the cards of Ross were just age related mistakes.

Excellent. Case closed Sherlock. We're all in clear agreement. CJ Ross is an excellent professional judge of high character and these two cards were easily made, understandable mistakes that could/would have been made by anyone.

Why won't you actually try and understand someone else's arguments? You have consistently failed to actually try and understand most of my arguments and then respond by saying that I am an idiot or something else, i.e. by name calling.

It is hard for me to fathom how you cannot understand my point about past corruption, are you deliberately not trying to understand or are you incapable of being able to understand? You are asking me to lighten up but it has been you that has entered this debate with some sort of anger that someone can argue against beliefs that you hold. Why can't you behave like an adult and argue accordingly? It may not be an academic forum but we are trying to argue about things, yet you are behaving like you are in the school playground.

Anyway you can respond if you like, I won't respond again to you, i'll look for adults to argue with. You can keep your misguided beliefs safely unoculated behind your tough internet veneer.

[BennyST]

Why won't you actually try and understand someone else's arguments? You have consistently failed to actually try and understand most of my arguments and then respond by saying that I am an idiot or something else, i.e. by name calling.

It is hard for me to fathom how you cannot understand my point about past corruption, are you deliberately not trying to understand or are you incapable of being able to understand? You are asking me to lighten up but it has been you that has entered this debate with some sort of anger that someone can argue against beliefs that you hold. Why can't you behave like an adult and argue accordingly? It may not be an academic forum but we are trying to argue about things, yet you are behaving like you are in the school playground.

Anyway you can respond if you like, I won't respond again to you, i'll look for adults to argue with. You can keep your misguided beliefs safely unoculated behind your tough internet veneer.

Tough internet veneer? School playground? Christ on a stick.....again with the holier than thou stuff. Can you not get past this and get back on track? Is this what passes as an e-thug to you? Someone who replies with answers that aren't waffle? You can't handle or grasp it, so you just fall back on tired, lame excuses as if im bullying you and acting like an NSB e-gangster? Mate, pull your head out and grow a pair. I'm not trying to be tough, I'm not being a bully, I'm not acting like a school yard thug, im not threatening you. I said the same **** in the last post and youre still going on the same rant about it. Get past the one post a million replies ago in which I called you a jackass. Would you like an apology? Is that it? Do you need someone to rub it better?

Get over it. You want to argue like an adult? Well, act like one. Stop whining like a goddamn hurt little child, get past a minor point that happened a million replies ago and argue what's being talked about! I'm not trying to be gangster on you. I want you to move on.

If your argument made sense, and was relevant, I would understand it. You brought up corruption and organised crime in the 1940's as a way to explain away corruption today, and you think I'm being obtuse?

You see two impossible scorecards as simple, understandable mistakes from a professional judge, and you think because I pull you up on your bull**** about trying to relate that to 1940's organised crime in boxing and some stats saying that its not as prevelant today, thus showing these to be the easily explained, simple, every day mistakes you claim them to be, and you have a hissy fit about only wanting to argue with adults.

This is what it comes down to: As I've said numerous times already, a repeating pattern that goes against all scoring criteria in boxing and against all professional and public opinion is not a simple mistake, especially in a sport with a long history of greed and corruption from its inception to now. Unless you have a different definition of mistake?

Anyway mate, you can't seem to grasp the difference between real world happenings and some bizarre insulated, statistical, academic world view that you have. Too much study, not enough life maybe....

I've been replying to your points and you argue about being called names and internet gangsters.....come on.

[BigStereotype]

Tough internet veneer? School playground? Christ on a stick.....again with the holier than thou stuff. Can you not get past this and get back on track? Is this what passes as an e-thug to you? Someone who replies with answers that aren't waffle? You can't handle or grasp it, so you just fall back on tired, lame excuses as if im bullying you and acting like an NSB e-gangster? Mate, pull your head out and grow a pair. I'm not trying to be tough, I'm not being a bully, I'm not acting like a school yard thug, im not threatening you. I said the same **** in the last post and youre still going on the same rant about it. Get past the one post a million replies ago in which I called you a jackass. Would you like an apology? Is that it? Do you need someone to rub it better?

Get over it. You want to argue like an adult? Well, act like one. Stop whining like a goddamn hurt little child, get past a minor point that happened a million replies ago and argue what's being talked about! I'm not trying to be gangster on you. I want you to move on.

If your argument made sense, and was relevant, I would understand it. You brought up corruption and organised crime in the 1940's as a way to explain away corruption today, and you think I'm being obtuse?

You see two impossible scorecards as simple, understandable mistakes from a professional judge, and you think because I pull you up on your bull**** about trying to relate that to 1940's organised crime in boxing and some stats saying that its not as prevelant today, thus showing these to be the easily explained, simple, every day mistakes you claim them to be, and you have a hissy fit about only wanting to argue with adults.

This is what it comes down to: As I've said numerous times already, a repeating pattern that goes against all scoring criteria in boxing and against all professional and public opinion is not a simple mistake, especially in a sport with a long history of greed and corruption from its inception to now. Unless you have a different definition of mistake?

Anyway mate, you can't seem to grasp the difference between real world happenings and some bizarre insulated, statistical, academic world view that you have. Too much study, not enough life maybe....

I've been replying to your points and you argue about being called names and internet gangsters.....come on.

@ Humean...I'm stoppin the fight, baby. Can't see you take no mo punishment. You e-fought like an e-warrior, but there's just no point anymore.