Cj Ross:Most corrupt judge in my lifetime.

[Daddy T]

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.

he understands, we all understand ... and understanding your points makes them all the easier to dismiss as nonsensical. The only person who doesn't understand, listen to, read or answer other people posts and arguments in this thread is you.

how about we have a vote ... who thinks CJ Ross is a corrupt old **** and who thinks she is an honest and well meaning judge that just happens to routinely and massively **** up.

here's 1 vote for corrupt old ****...

[billeau2]

he understands, we all understand ... and understanding your points makes them all the easier to dismiss as nonsensical. The only person who doesn't understand, listen to, read or answer other people posts and arguments in this thread is you.

how about we have a vote ... who thinks CJ Ross is a corrupt old **** and who thinks she is an honest and well meaning judge that just happens to routinely and massively **** up.

here's 1 vote for corrupt old ****...

I would caution against using any argument "for the consensus" to validate a conclusion HOS. ********ic institutions are a wonderful thing when influencing public policy, the distribution of resources and other such things....However when used to decide what is true and untrue? often enough the counting of votes becomes the tyranny of an ignorant majority.

There is enough of a logical "paper trail" to demonstrate the CJ situation....Including her recent decision to step down.... presumably because she was taking one for the team? highly unlikely! Or should one say...depending on what team ahem!

[soul_survivor]

Couple of things...

(a) You're pretty biased in favour of Mayweather so that argument on your behalf falls flat.

(a) I didn't say it was a draw, I had Mayweather winning, but there enough close rounds to argue the case for a draw even though it would be the wrong result.

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

It's definitely not the worst scorecard I've ever seen.

Now Pacquiao v Bradley...there weren't enough close rounds in that fight to argue a draw never mind a Bradley win. She deserves criticism for that one.

There are more people who think this was a close fight.

People will rant and rave that I'm not a Floyd fan and I'm not but I've given him credit where credit's due. I said Canelo was the best available opponent since the Pac fight wasn't gona happen. I also believe this fight was close, not because Canelo is great but down the stretch, in the later rounds, Floyd was giving away rounds due to inactivity.

I can't remember my scorecard but I definitely gave Canelo rounds 8 and 9 because Floyd just stopped working. The 10 was arguable, as were a couple rounds in the first 5 rounds.

There were enough close rounds for them to go either way, I personally gave the fight to Floyd and think he was a deserved winner but you don't have to be corrupt to see how it may be viewed a POSSIBLE draw.

The pac/bradley fight was totally different, the rounds Manny won, at the very least, 8 of them, were clearly Pac rounds, the rounds that Bradley, possibly 4, were very close, hard fought rounds. That is the worst robbery of the 21st century.

There isn't any bias here, just fact.

[joseph5620]

There are more people who think this was a close fight.

People will rant and rave that I'm not a Floyd fan and I'm not but I've given him credit where credit's due. I said Canelo was the best available opponent since the Pac fight wasn't gona happen. I also believe this fight was close, not because Canelo is great but down the stretch, in the later rounds, Floyd was giving away rounds due to inactivity.

I can't remember my scorecard but I definitely gave Canelo rounds 8 and 9 because Floyd just stopped working. The 10 was arguable, as were a couple rounds in the first 5 rounds.

There were enough close rounds for them to go either way, I personally gave the fight to Floyd and think he was a deserved winner but you don't have to be corrupt to see how it may be viewed a POSSIBLE draw.

The pac/bradley fight was totally different, the rounds Manny won, at the very least, 8 of them, were clearly Pac rounds, the rounds that Bradley, possibly 4, were very close, hard fought rounds. That is the worst robbery of the 21st century.

There isn't any bias here, just fact.

You claiming that you are speaking facts is laughable. NOBODY who can be taken seriously thinks that was a close fight. You fall under that category.

And you are plenty biased. Don't think you are fooling anybody with that lie.

[soul_survivor]

You claiming that you are speaking facts is laughable. NOBODY who can be taken seriously thinks that was a close fight. You fall under that category.

And you are plenty biased. Don't think you are fooling anybody with that lie.

what lie? I simply think that Floyd made the fight close by taking rounds off, you don't think staying on the ropes and offering no offense is taking rounds off...what do you call it? He did that for at least 3 rounds 8-10 and in the 12 he simply ran. That's 4 rounds there and in a couple of early rounds he seemed to enjoy making Canelo miss but didn't offer much up himself. Why he did that, I don't know but he did. Watch the fight without the Mayweather glasses and you'll see.

I repeat, Floyd made the fight close due to inactivity, in terms of skill, Canelo was all at sea but every now and then he had the higher work rate and blocked a fair few of Floyd's punches. I don't see what's so controversial about that.

[billeau2]

what lie? I simply think that Floyd made the fight close by taking rounds off, you don't think staying on the ropes and offering no offense is taking rounds off...what do you call it? He did that for at least 3 rounds 8-10 and in the 12 he simply ran. That's 4 rounds there and in a couple of early rounds he seemed to enjoy making Canelo miss but didn't offer much up himself. Why he did that, I don't know but he did. Watch the fight without the Mayweather glasses and you'll see.

I repeat, Floyd made the fight close due to inactivity, in terms of skill, Canelo was all at sea but every now and then he had the higher work rate and blocked a fair few of Floyd's punches. I don't see what's so controversial about that.

On the other hand.... consensus is a great tool for evaluating things like who won a fight.....

Think of it this way maharishi: of the many many people that saw this fight including experts and laymen alike, virtually all of them were of the same opinion....

Think of it this way...If a sport does not yield winners that can be ajudicated as the winner....who would follow the sport? "Well even though the yankees won six games and the reds won only one, we will give the world series to the reds." So how are fans supposed to judge a fight appropriately to find the winner Maharishi? See the problem here?

you and the others who want to be ridiculous and make a case for a fight that was even close make no sense no matter how you dice it.

[joseph5620]

what lie? I simply think that Floyd made the fight close by taking rounds off, you don't think staying on the ropes and offering no offense is taking rounds off...what do you call it? He did that for at least 3 rounds 8-10 and in the 12 he simply ran. That's 4 rounds there and in a couple of early rounds he seemed to enjoy making Canelo miss but didn't offer much up himself. Why he did that, I don't know but he did. Watch the fight without the Mayweather glasses and you'll see.

I repeat, Floyd made the fight close due to inactivity, in terms of skill, Canelo was all at sea but every now and then he had the higher work rate and blocked a fair few of Floyd's punches. I don't see what's so controversial about that.

The fact that you gave rounds 8 and 9 to Canelo (two big Mayweather rounds) kills any amount of credibility you thought you had on this topic. You would have to be biased to the point of delusions to score those rounds for Canelo.

Any other rounds you talk about about in this fight are not worth responding to because it's clear you have an agenda.

[billeau2]

The fact that you gave rounds 8 and 9 to Canelo (two big Mayweather rounds) kills any amount of credibility you thought you had on this topic. You would have to be biased to the point of delusions to score those rounds for Canelo.

Any other rounds you talk about about in this fight are not worth responding to because it's clear you have an agenda.

No you and the 99.9% of boxing fans just don't get it....Maharishi and CJ do though, Hume also! See during those rounds Cannelo was using an ancient Aztec Mexican boxing technique recognized by precious few...about 5 people to be exact, it involves a process of wearing down the opponent's hands with your face and slinging sweat (as it is punched off of you) into their eyes.

[soul_survivor]

The fact that you gave rounds 8 and 9 to Canelo (two big Mayweather rounds) kills any amount of credibility you thought you had on this topic. You would have to be biased to the point of delusions to score those rounds for Canelo.

Any other rounds you talk about about in this fight are not worth responding to because it's clear you have an agenda.

hahahaha you're a ******, I knew it.

If you can't watch a fight and see that May's activity dropped than you must be. Seriously, do you need some sort of visual enhancement to view fights? If you're semi-blind I understand.

On the other hand.... consensus is a great tool for evaluating things like who won a fight.....

Think of it this way maharishi: of the many many people that saw this fight including experts and laymen alike, virtually all of them were of the same opinion....

Think of it this way...If a sport does not yield winners that can be ajudicated as the winner....who would follow the sport? "Well even though the yankees won six games and the reds won only one, we will give the world series to the reds." So how are fans supposed to judge a fight appropriately to find the winner Maharishi? See the problem here?

you and the others who want to be ridiculous and make a case for a fight that was even close make no sense no matter how you dice it.

I'm not saying the fight was a draw, do you know how to read? What language do you want me to type in?

I said Floyd won but he made it close enough for some people to see it closer than the so called virtuoso performance make it out to be. CJ Ross may well be corrupt, the evidence stacks up against her but there can be an argument for honest people scoring the fight a draw.

A friend of mine who used train guys at the Pea**** gym had Mayweather winning by 2-3 points max and he is the biggest Mayweather fan I know.

[joseph5620]

hahahaha you're a ******, I knew it.

If you can't watch a fight and see that May's activity dropped than you must be. Seriously, do you need some sort of visual enhancement to view fights? If you're semi-blind I understand.



I'm not saying the fight was a draw, do you know how to read? What language do you want me to type in?

I said Floyd won but he made it close enough for some people to see it closer than the so called virtuoso performance make it out to be. CJ Ross may well be corrupt, the evidence stacks up against her but there can be an argument for honest people scoring the fight a draw.

A friend of mine who used train guys at the Pea**** gym had Mayweather winning by 2-3 points max and he is the biggest Mayweather fan I know.

I can watch a fight just fine. But I'm not going to waste time with a red rep bar idiot like you who is known to be a moron. Any doubts about that can be removed by your post history.



Go spread your ignorance somewhere else and say hello to your friend that has a friend who has a cousin that trained fighters. That's all the time you'll get from me.