No, no and no... Once that bell sounds to signal the start of Round 1 there is no Champion in the ring and it becomes a fight for the Championship. In no listing of rules will you ever see an advantage to the holder of a title and neither should you.
You do not have to "take the title" to beat a champ. You've got to win 7 rounds without getting knocked down. It's boxing fans that have come up with this bull**** of having to rip the title away from the champion. A title fight should not be scored any differently from a non-title fight, the judging criteria doesn't change just because a title is on the line. If Valuev is the aggressor but lands no clean punches and Haye lands 3 or 4 flush punches then he wins the round.
I know what you are saying. BUT The IBF seem to have a unwritten rule if it is a close round you MUST award it too the champion - very bizarre but true.
I've not noticed that myself but even if such a "gentleman's agreement" is in place you're forgetting that the Valuev vs Haye fight was for the WBA title.
Nah, that's a myth but the myth is Pep won the round because he made his opponent miss and miss. Valuev did not make Haye miss, he was getting caught flush even if it was only by a few punches a round.
Yes, really. It's people like Bert Sugar who try to pass the story off as fact but there's no record of it actually happening.
Colin Hart was very critical of Hayes performance - I'm sure he thinks Haye would never have been good enough back in his golden days