Julie Lederman's 119-109 Card - Was it Fair, Crazy, Corrupt?

The fact that these wide outlier scorecards all seem to be coming from women judges is fascinating on many levels. And I think you make an interesting point about "they" using women because this may cause some people to pass it off as just stupid women not knowing how to score rather than just plain ol corruption. But like we're WOKE right lol we can see through it, using these women is all just a smoke screen for the real corruption right. But in all seriousness, it's sort of a big stretch to believe that. I ask you how is Lederman's card any more corrupt than any cards? If anything maybe you could argue that because they are women they may be more attracted to the younger more flashy fighter and more willing to score rounds for them. Just a theory but it would make sense. And I think it's less of a stretch than believing that it has to be corruption. This is where the disconnect is. Canelo was a younger more flashy, more handsome fighter than Mayweather or GGG. Is it such a shock that a women judge may be more attracted to that and be more willing to give him close rounds? What about the young strong Lopez vs the older more gunshy Loma. What would a woman judge be more attracted to?

Suspicious is one thing - corruption is another. Does the fact that these outlier judges are often women make you more or less willing to believe it's corruption? Are women by an large more or less willing to take a bride than men in a male dominated sport? It's a fascinating question but I think it's more likely that this keeps happening naturally due to women being attracted maybe more to younger more handsome fighters in matches vs older slower less flashy fighters vs believing that there's actual corruption involved.

 

Does that suggest that a woman judge would be less likely to take a bribe than a man?

 

I will have to rewatch. How sure are you that's not your fandom running wild?

This is what happens all the time. You just can't fathom that it can be anything other than corruption, because it's so fundamentally contrary to what you saw. But, no one possesses the ability to get into the mind of someone else and know their motives. Plenty of people think they know everything about everything but really don't know jack about anything.

 

Look I'm not saying if you're right or wrong, I get what you're saying. I think we can all (or most) disagree with an outlier judge and we can all agree that a judge has it wrong without it being due to some kind of sinister / bribe / outside influence. In some cases it might be but it seems to me that it is assumed that so-called bad / wrong judging is assumed to be corruption far too often. And I think this happens because the judges each have a different mind, so naturally there would be variances in scoring.

And to bring it back to here, In this poll so far we have 7 votes non-corrupt (fair or crazy) and 10 votes corrupt. That's far from unanimous corruption yet you call it clear corruption. See the problem? I just think in many of these cases we have a judge just seeing it differently, paying attention to different things, seeing it from different angles than the other judges, etc rather than them having some kind of a motive to score it one way or another. I'm not saying it never happens but I think it just gets assumed that something sinister must be going on every time there's an outlier judge. And I think it's just a huge stretch to believe that.