I see this trotted out every so often, especially in the US where it seems to have become some kind of unwritten rule to justify home town decisions. Essentially it seems to meant that there is a different standard applied to challengers than to the incumbent. I've looked in the rules of boxing and it doesn't appear. Was it originally dreamed up by promoters or broadcasters eager to justify a stacked deck? Whatever, to me there's two kinds of boxing fans. The ones that want a level playing field and decisions awarded on merit and those that are willing to look the other way if a stacked deck happens to favour their guy. Do you agree? Or do you think there's merit in the idea of expecting the challenger to have to do more than simply win in order to justify a title changing hands? In which case I'd love to hear your argument...
There is no merit in that statement. Whoever wins the fight should get the decision. What makes a champ more worthy than the challenger if the challenger beat him by a close margin?
No it's BS drivel concocted to excuse the fact the home town fighter almost always gets the benefit of the doubt in a close fight. If the challenger wins more rounds he wins, if it was in the rules the challenger has to win at least 8 rounds to win then yeah it would be true but that's not how boxing is scored.
No. A challenger shouldn't have to do any more than win the fight to take the belt away. Even in the case of a draw I think the belt should be made vacant, else what's the point in having a champion who's only as good as the challenger?
Ideally no the best boxer should win, Ideally its a vacuum but its hard to to go against the narrative
Makes no sense to me. Once the first bell rings the belt is essentially vacant as both fighters are now competing for it. If a round is too close to call then give it as an even round, don’t just give it to the champion for the sake of it.
I get what you are saying but it's not correct. Because if the belt was vacant, it would stay vacant in the scenario of a draw or no contest. But if it's champion Vs challenger the belt stays with the champion in those scenarios.
I probably hate that boxing cliche more than any other. Well, 'best cutsman in the business' comes close. It's basically a tacit admission scoring can be fixed to favour a certain fighter. Every fight should be judged in isolation of every external factor and both fighters start at ground zero at the first bell. For a maximum of 36 minutes, the title is effectively vacant in my view. Then either the belt is returned to the man who brought it into the ring or handed over to the other dude with gloves on....
This is what baaaxing is. You don't win the title by doing the same as the champion. You beat him by being better.
Funny thing is GGG, KOV, Castillo, PAC, lemmux were all robbed even when they were champions. Figure that one out..
I don't mind that one as much, firstly it makes me laugh as it's seemingly awarded to every guy that's ever dabbed some adrenaline on a cut, but it's also I guess at least an attempt at recognition for one of the support roles. The main thing however is that at least its not there to implicitly justify corruption.
This, lol. TBH it doesn't annoy me as much as it makes me laugh.... but it is ridiculous nonetheless...
I know many will disagree, but I think there is some merit in this unwritten standard. A champion has attained the pinnacle of his or her division and therefore merits, in my view a certain respect or deference in the scoring, i.e. a close rounds being awarded to the champ. I do think that challengers should, in effect, be held to a higher standard because they are trying to prove their merit as beltholders while champions have already done so. Folks may disagree, fine, but this is, to me, a sound argument.
Its meant in the event of a close fight. However it doesn’t even matter. Arguing a non issue seems pointless. Nowadays in a close fight the win and the belts go where money dictates.
