The Concept of the Challenger Needing to Really Beat the Champ...

It means that he challenger has to beat the champion to take his title.

If it's a draw, the champion keeps his title.


Nothing more.

 

No, it is a slightly deeper concept than that.

In the first half of the 20th century, there was a prevalent view that the champion should be given the benefit of the doubt, if the fight was close.

There was also a tendency for the champion to get the benefit of the doubt, if the challenger fought defensively.

 

Asinine concept.

 

Perhaps, but it at least explains a lot.

 

Yeah, it was a widespread blunder for some time but thankfully has fallen into disfavor with modern judges...mainly.

It may have been a *******ization of this original meaning of the phrase, borne of misinterpretation:

 

It was a concept that was mainly used to defend Muhammad Ali when he got his ass kicked but still won the decision.

End thread.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I know my views on this subject are unpopular, but I stand by them.

There is a need generally, for the 'right' person to win in this sport. Thus having a bias does the sport a favour.

The ending of this concept, is in correlation to the drop in popularity of the sport.

A challenger should always have to 'comprehensively' win a title, any 'reasonable' doubt should benefit the champ.

 

No one knows how it started but I suspect it goes back to the bear knuckle era.
Back then guys may not be able to fight so long, it was understood that the challenger had to win descisively because he had a fresher body.

 

A bareknuckle fight can only be won when one fighter fails to come to scratch, therfore any win would be prety decisive.

 

The concept comes from the need for the promoter to make sure the 'right' person wins. It is like most things in boxing, dictated by finance.

The 'hardcore' fancy may bemoan this concept, but it does not matter. As the 'hardcore', you are generally watching, and will carry on watching, no matter what the result. But the 'casual' fancy is probably only going to carrying on watching if their favourite fighter is winning. Thus a promoter is going to use all the 'tools' available to make sure this happens.

 

Judges may strive to be neutral (one would expect them to, or at least hope so) but they are human just like anyone else -- and they can be overawed by an Ali or a Sugar Ray Leonard of another fighter of great accomplishment and chrisma. Without being conscious of it, they might give such a champ a round that should have been even, or was very close.

But in all eras, champions have lost their belts on close decisions. I think -- other than a champ retaining on a draw -- it's mostly something people say rather than an actual thing.

 

I agree. It's called a rigged judging panel.
There has been a lot more of that than we want to admit.