The Challenger Must Take The Title From The Champion

Dementia Pugulistica · Mar 30, 2025

1. The "Champion’s Advantage" in Close Rounds
While not an official rule, judges often operate on an unspoken ethos:

The belt is earned, not given—close rounds may lean toward the champion because the challenger must prove dominance.

Ring generalship favors experienced champions who control tempo, defense, and positioning, even in tight exchanges.

Burden of proof is on the challenger; if the round is ambiguous, the champion retains the benefit of the doubt (akin to "innocent until proven guilty").

Example: In Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin I (2017), critics argued Canelo retained his middleweight title via draw partly because Golovkin didn’t clearly outperform him in swing rounds.

2. Psychological Warfare

Championship aura: A seasoned titleholder’s reputation can intimidate judges and opponents, making their jabs or feints seem more impactful.

Challenger’s urgency: Fighters like a young Tyson Fury (vs. Wladimir Klitschko, 2015) knew they had to force the action to dethrone a long-reigning champ.

3. Historical Precedent

"To be the man, you gotta beat the man" (Ric Flair’s wrestling mantra applies to boxing). Legends like Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Floyd Mayweather Jr. leveraged this mindset to retain titles in disputed decisions (e.g., Ali vs. Ken Norton III).

Controversial draws/splits (e.g., Wilder-Fury I, 2018) often spark debates about whether the challenger did enough to strip the champion.

4. Why This Philosophy Exists

Sporting meritocracy: Titles shouldn’t change hands on marginal calls; dominance should be undeniable.

Human bias mitigation: Judges may unconsciously counterbalance the crowd’s underdog bias by favoring proven champions in 50-50 rounds.

Key Takeaway: In boxing’s theatre of truth, the challenger must leave no doubt—because champions, like kings, rarely abdicate without a fight.

Personally I agree with the sentiment and feel it elevates the sport.
What do you folks think?

HistoryZero26 · Mar 30, 2025

In the early eras there was a movement for challengers only getting the belt if they stopped the opponent. This was in part due to lack of official judging. But the belt changing hands via decision seemed to spawn more alternative titlelists than other outcomes.

Mike McTigue for example remained champ despite losing over and over because no one stopped him and there were no official judges for those fights.

I think this makes more sense in MMA where a challengers only got to win 3 rounds to take the title. In a 12 or 15 round contest if the champ loses they lose.

McGrain · Mar 30, 2025

I suppose that it is possible that there are rounds that are very close where a judge literally can't find any reason to give it to either fighter and so might score it to the champion. Not impossible. But those rounds are bound to be few and far between and it only matters in an era where it's not possible to offer a drawn round. I can't imagine really close rounds would be scored to the champ when you can just score them even.

"You have to take the title from the champion" is something that the press say and that promoters say. It's said when one's fighter has been favoured by poor judging IMO.

MetalLicker · Mar 30, 2025

It's just another way of saying we're going rob the other fighter.

Canelo got schooled 10-2 against Bivol and all 3 judges had it 115-113. Certain fighters courts corruption like cow dung courts flies.

Levook · Mar 30, 2025

I always thought this was a lot of BS, if the Challenger wins the fight by a point, he is the new champion. If a judge feels the round was even, then it should be scored even.

alangjk · Mar 30, 2025

I couldn't disagree more.

GGGfans · Mar 30, 2025

As you say, it's not an official rule.

GGG vs. Canelo I and II, Kovalev vs. Ward I, Pacquiao vs. Horn, etc., prove it doesn't exist.

bandeedo · Mar 30, 2025

if you cant honestly say the challenger did better in a rd than the champ, then its the champs rd. and if you think the challenger did better, then theres no need for this adage to apply.
i think its a sound philosophy, if you apply it for every fight for a title. in practice, the champ would have already taken the title from the champ, by achieving separation in enough of the rds. he has proven it wasnt just a case of a judge giving him one too many close rds. he proved he was better.

catchwtboxing · Mar 30, 2025

Should read, "The challenger must take the title from the champion if the champion is a popular champion that promotors and ratings boards can make money from, but if the challenger is more popular and makes more money, then the champion has to defend agains the newcomer."

The Professor · Mar 30, 2025

Yes, I agree. The burden of proof should be with the challenger. They must, in effect, TAKE the title from the champion in a clear, definitive manner.

HistoryZero26 · Mar 30, 2025

bandeedo said: ↑

if you cant honestly say the challenger did better in a rd than the champ, then its the champs rd. and if you think the challenger did better, then theres no need for this adage to apply.
i think its a sound philosophy, if you apply it for every fight for a title. in practice, the champ would have already taken the title from the champ, by achieving separation in enough of the rds. he has proven it wasnt just a case of a judge giving him one too many close rds. he proved he was better.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a defendable philosophy though it shouldn't be mandatory. I know I don't believe in 10-10s. I believe judges should pick someone. Thats why they are there to pick someone.

West of Hollywood · Mar 30, 2025

Boxing is scored round by round and I believe that some rounds are truly even, and the best thing is to score them 10-10. I don't buy the "the judges should pick a winner every round" argument. The problem with round-by-round scoring is that you get flawed scenarios where for example one fighter wins 6 rounds decisively (but no 10-8 rounds) and the other fighter wins 6 fairly close rounds, and the fight is scored a draw.

Slyk · Mar 30, 2025

Makes no sense unless you're in on the corruption.

This is a bull**** line that people trot out when someone got mildly done over.

Badbot · Mar 30, 2025

This implies that the champion gets a handicap when it comes to scoring, which is just BS.
It´s a term coined by promoters.

Serge · Mar 30, 2025

That's like saying the murderer must make sure the victim is dead before they flee the scene in order for the jury to convict them of murder

You people are waaayy crazy, man

Log in or Sign up

The Challenger Must Take The Title From The Champion

The challenger must take the belt from the champion. Agree or disagree?

Agree

Disagree

Dementia Pugulistica Well-Known Member Full Member

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

MetalLicker I Am Full Member

Levook Well-Known Member Full Member

alangjk Active Member Full Member

GGGfans Active Member Full Member

bandeedo Loyal Member Full Member

catchwtboxing Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

The Professor Socialist Ring Leader Staff Member

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

West of Hollywood Active Member Full Member

Slyk Boxing Junkie Full Member

Badbot You can just do things. Full Member

Serge Ginger Dracula Staff Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

The Challenger Must Take The Title From The Champion

The challenger must take the belt from the champion. Agree or disagree?

Agree

Disagree

Dementia Pugulistica Well-Known Member Full Member

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

MetalLicker I Am Full Member

Levook Well-Known Member Full Member

alangjk Active Member Full Member

GGGfans Active Member Full Member

bandeedo Loyal Member Full Member

catchwtboxing Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

The Professor Socialist Ring Leader Staff Member

HistoryZero26 Boxing Addict Full Member

West of Hollywood Active Member Full Member

Slyk Boxing Junkie Full Member

Badbot You can just do things. Full Member

Serge Ginger Dracula Staff Member