In a close decision, u have to give it to the champ.

After watching pac/marquez 3 i went public and expressed my disappointment. I felt like marquez won, hands down. But then i went back and watched it a second time. I gotta say....IT WAS A VERY CLOSE FIGHT. Neither pac nor marquez dominated IN ANY way. NOBODY WON DECISIVELY. Could it have gone either way??? Absolutely. It could have even been a draw. But if a fight is that close it has to go to the champ....that, being pacquiao. And if it was pacquiao that was on the losing end of a close decision, i would feel the same way. :bbb

 

Or the "Home" fighter.
(That has all the promotion behind him)
Which is exactly what happened on SAT.

 

no no no, sir

you score a fight round by round

whoever has the most points wins the fight


you don't wait until the fight is over and suddenly think 'gee willikers that was close! I'll give it to the champ!'

 

If I'm not incorrect, the expression "taking it from the champ" meant that a draw was not enough to strip the champion of the title, and that only a victory would guarantee the championship. Even if winning rounds dominantly means taking the championship for you while scoring round-by-round, Marquez certainly did that for 7 at the least.

Lots of people struggled to give Pacquiao four or five rounds, and six would be pushing it. There's no way he won 7.

It's time for boxing fans to accept that a fight that isn't a complete shut out doesn't mean the awarded victor can be justified because the sport is "subjective." Close but clear, and not even really too close for most.

 

i think he meant, close rounds go to the champ.

it's like,
judge 1: holy **** that round was close, who will i give that round to?
judge 2: just give it to the champ.

lol

 

:verysad

 

FALSE. Each fight and each round is supposed to stand on its own.

 

Possibly...but he's still wrong. Each round you either win or lose, period.

 

Ding ding ding ding ding we have a winner

 

so no 10-10 round?
some rounds were so close you don't know who won. so the judges could be thinking, "meh, pac's moving forward so ill just give it him".

 

Yeah thats the rule of thumb. You have to decisively defeat the champion to win the title belt.

 

I hear ya, but that's "old school" BS. There is NO written rule anywhere in any boxing organization that state this as a scoring stipulation. Whomever outpoints the other wins, plain and simple...:good

 

Then why didnt Marquez get the decision in the 2nd fight? He was the Champ in that fight. :deal

 

jermaine taylor-bernard hopkins???

 

That bull**** about champ getting any decision started with Ali, when almost everyone he fought was getting robbed. There are no "Champ points" in a fight, they are supposed to score it as a fight, and give it to rightful winner.