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

Why would we want to admit it, what good will that do? You sterilize boxing, and you will not have a lot left. Sometimes ignorance is bliss...

 

I could see that. If I invest 100 million in promoting a guy over decades, I may want him to be the favourite.

 

If it is a 100 million Pounds, Euros or Dollars; I do not want him just to be favourite, I want and expect him to win, and would do whatever I could to make that so. Who honestly wouldn't?

 

You're assuming the champion is the one with the most box office clout...the 'right' person is often the challenger.

 

I would agree. But normally the first bout the 'superstar' has for a title is a gimme. Thus when the truly big fights come, the 'superstar' is in the position of being a title holder.

 

Yes, but even when not the case (such as Leonard vs Benitez) the champion won't get any favours.

 

I was just gonna say the dame thing as Conteh. These days it seems to favour the "name" or connected fighter whether he's champ or challenger, obviously not in all cases.

 

Yes, Leonard was the superstar, the default champ, not the actual champ.

Another example of the concept twisting, would be if the champ was a 'travelling champion'. Not really something that happens now a days, but all the way up to arguable Brian Mitchell, something that happened in the sport.

 

It was basically a concept that was thrown out there in the late 1970s to rationalize Muhammad Ali getting decisions in fights he lost. You heard it on the street quite often. "You got to take it from the champ" is what they said.

If that was truly the case Sugar Ray Robinson wouldve never lost his title to Basillio the first fight in a fight that was razor thin.