OK, I realise that just from what my title is suggesting, I'm going to get a ton of hate directed my way. But let me just begin this by saying I do not agree with the scoring of CJ Ross on the Mayweather fight but find myself bewildered by the arguments I've heard for why she needs to be fired, how she doesn't know what she's doing etc.
Keith Keizer made a good point when he pointed to the scoring system as the problem of these inconsistent judging calls. As a fan of mma and a casual observer of boxing, I see the same logic from fans on this matter time and time again. That is that the overall decision of a fight is a direct reflection of who that judge thought won the fight and how dominant they were. With the 10point must system,CJ Ross' scoring of 114-114 does not in any way mean she thought both fighters were equal over the course of the fight. It could just be that the rounds she thought Mayweather won, he won convincingly, and the rounds she gave to Canelo, she thought maybe he just squeezed through, nevertheless, we end up with 6 rounds apiece.
One of the other judges had the bout 116-112 Mayweather. This means that this judge and CJ Ross only potentially disagreed on two rounds. Two rounds out of 12!! Those two rounds did though happen to make a difference to who that judge scored the fight to and because that judges scorecard said 'Mayweather' on the end of it, we fail to realise that his scoring wasn't much different at all from that of CJ Ross. Using the same logic, surely a similar anger should be directed at that judge aswell for awarding Canelo 4 rounds?
For a similar instance, I think back to Chael Sonnen vs Michael Bisping. After the fight there was some disbelief from Bisping, Dana and some of the media that one judge gave the fight 30-27 for Chael. Now the only truly decisive round in that fight was the third and that went to Chael. So Bispings frustration seemed to be from the assumption that the 30-27 judge thought the fight was all Chael, but that is not what it means. He argued that he should have had one of those rounds but the only difference between that scorecard and that of the other two judges was one round, one close round that came down to a few punches maybe. When Chael was asked about his thoughts on the scorecard he gave a great answer saying something to the effect of 'the rounds have to go somewhere' and that they were close rounds, showing the same kind of understanding of the system that I'm trying to express.
So did CJ Ross make the right call? No! But not because she scored the fight a draw, but because she may have given Canelo a round here or there that he probably lost, and the result of that was a draw. Mayweather as a whole won the fight, probably even in the eyes of CJ Ross as well, but fights are not judged as a whole, the closeness of one round has no effect or relevance to the rounds that follow. The frustration should be on the scoring system that does not take into account the fight as one total entity. I really hope I made my point clear that is essentially to say that CJ Ross' scorecard has no reflection on who she thought was the better fighter and that in a perfect world, we would go back to a scoring system similar to that used in Pride.