You have to take the title from the champ!!!

This continues to be the phrase most commonly used when a fighter earns a dubious decision...but, it also continues to be the most ridiculous one as well. The notion not only implies bias on behalf the judges, but inherently rules out a close decision win for the challenger.

• Does this mean that a champion automatically wins every close round?

• Does this mean that he gets a two round head start?

• Does this mean that if a judge has it 7-5 or 8-4 on behalf of the challenger, that said judge has to immediately rip up his scorecard and do it over?

• Does this mean that if a judge has a close win to the challenger that his card is automatically invalid and the scoring is left in the hands of the champion's closest relative sitting ringside? Or his promoter if said relative has gone to the can? If neither is at the fight, can they phone a friend like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

The entire notion of the saying makes about zero sense. When Taylor took a much maligned decision from my favorite active fighter Bernard Hopkins, I didnt even attempt to use this bull****. If I did, Id probably get halfway through it before throwing up in my mouth.

Boxing fans are supposed to know better than this. Unfortunately, this site is littered with too many fans of certain fighters and not enough "boxing fans". If you scored last nights fight the way its supposed to be scored (Clean Punching, Effective Aggression, Defense and Ring Generalship...with the emphasis on Clean Punching) there is no possible way to give Froch 7 rounds.

And this post is being written by someone who has disliked Dirrell in the past and was emphatically rooting for Froch last night. The difference is, I love this sport much more than ANY fighter. Maybe some of you should try doing that.

The challender does not have to take the title from the champ...he just has to win more rounds. Dirrell did that last night...unfortunately, he is not the champ today and its a crying shame for boxing as a whole.

:verysad

 

We dont score fights on effort, we score fights on actual boxing. I didnt like the running or the holding either...but unfortunately, none of that matters if he is clearly outboxing Froch round in and round out.

Like I said man, the challenger doesnt have worry about fighting to WIN the championship, he has to worry about WINNING more rounds. That arguement you just made is essentially the same quote I am deriding.

And to the next post in line, it doesnt matter who says it, said it or is going to say it. It doesnt make a lick of ****ing sense.

 

Two things...

1- Your post shows you dont know a thing about scoring a fight. Go do some research on the rules of judging a round and fight...as well as possible reasons for disqualification (like the body slam he used on Dirrell)...then come back and try to have a real debate.

2- The fact that you even brought nationality into this shows the weakness of your arguement. I never once said a thing about that in my entire post. The thought of trying to add a xenophobic validity to my feelings on the fight is as ridiculous as using the very phrase I am trying to belittle. I even mentioned that I was CHEERING for Froch. Robberies and bad/hometown decisions happen EVERYWHERE...they are a problem of the sport, not of a specific geographic area.

:-(

 

So the judge is biased toward the champion then? That is your arguement?

:huh

atsch

We keep hearing how Dirrell broke the rules by holding and running (running is not against the rules...but whatever)...yet you want the judges to do so just because Froch was the "champion"?

:verysad