If a challenger doesn't want to risk losing a decision where the champion gets the benefit of the doubt, he can always step up and win the belt like a man: by knocking the champ out.
You can have a fight with six close rounds, but if the other six are clear for one guy and he scored a knockdown, that is an inflexible 114-113 IMO. It would be a robbery if an incumbent champion were the party that lost six rounds and got dropped but retained, even by a MD with a couple of 114-113 cards in his favor.
Yes. Exactly. By extension, under the same principle, the champion came into possession not by a tight verdict but by clearly taking the title from previous champion. I think you'll find boxing fans are constantly arguing and disputing the judges's decisions, at all levels
No its not about taking it from a champ it is about taking it from the home fighter. I dont care what anybody on here says and i dont care what any Boxing official says, scorecards and refereeing decisions can be swayed by the whole vibe from a home fighters crowd. It happens everywhere. Especially in big fights with big crowds, weve all been to a fight, you can just feel the vibe for that home fighter. But then its a 12 round game, each round scored individually and it stops if somebody is knocked out, nothing should matter but the fight and its rules. I heard people going on about how Fury got knocked down twice you cant lose a fight if you knocked the other guy down twice, nonsense, within the rules you can. But that home crowd and the favoritism towards that fighter throught the whole evening does seem to make a difference.
a) there have to be a lot of swing rounds to justify it going either way, and having that many truly swings rounds is actually pretty rare. b) even in those scenarios there should be no built-in presumed benefit of the doubt for the champion. Even if all twelve rounds are close but a majority are close-but-clear for the challenger, the belt should change hands, period, end of story.
Can but shouldn't. Professional judges who let themselves be swayed by crowd noise shouldn't be professional judges. Yes it happens, but when it happens the officials involved ought to be named & shamed.
Yeah, yeah .... you keep coming up with very palatable scenarios. But what if all 12 rounds are all very close ? And every fans is sat at home or ringside with similar but contrary scores, saying "this could go either way" - are you saying we have to wait and see if the champion deserves to lose his hard-won title ?
Yes. There's no presumption of retention. It all comes down to whatever arithmetic we get from the judges' panel...same as when that champion was in the other role as the challenger (unless he won by KO, but...you know what I mean)
Big difference between disputing whether a judge made the right call and advocating the active favouring of one fighter over another based on their status. I don't think the latter is a common occurrence, except when it comes to the pernicious concept which is the subject of this thread. My point is that some fans have allowed themselves, for whatever reason, to assimilate this rationalisation for home cooked decision making in a way they would otherwise never support.
It doesn't mean any of the things being trotted out here. It has NO bearing on the RBR scoring which should be scored in the same fashion as if neither man were champion. What it DOES mean is that if the final scoring results in a draw, the champion keeps the title. Nothing more.
I made the point in the opening post that it has no status in the rules of boxing so by inference it should play no part in judging. I'm going by its usage by commentators, pundits and fans etc. where it's frequently used to justify controversial or even scandalous decisions in the favour of the established fighter.
All those people are basically praying at the altar of a debunked myth sprouting from a basic misinterpretation of the phrase, which originally just signified the consequence of a draw (title not changing hands) and nothing more. People are idiots.
