If a round is Close and Hard to Score: what's wrong with just Giving it to the Champ

being champ ought to count for something

 

Nothing wrong. That's what almost always happens anyway. The problem is, some people think a round is close unless it is completely one sided, or if the losing side landed a few good shots, when in fact there is a clear winner of the round.

 

You just need to rewrite the rules to say the champ should be favoured in close rounds. You can add it alongside a rule that says to 'take a man's belts you need to beat him by 3 or 4 rounds clear' or 'If you come to the champ's home you have to knock him out or you don't deserve the win' and be sure to add some other nonsensical rationalisations for favouring one guy over another whilst you're at it. Come post them when you're done and we can formalise all this shithouse cheating and the even worse rationalisation attempts by biased fans, at least it will be in the rulebook for everyone to see.

 

Extra points?
I ****ing hate this logic. So the champ gets a handicap just because?

 

Disagree. A fight should be on equal terms, no handicaps. Give the round even rather than gift it to the champ.

 

This, replace champ with "person you like more" or "if it's hard why bother". Why even have scoring in close fights?

 

My opinion is that if a round is too close to score, you score it even. Because that's what it then actually is, right?!
If we take the "score it for the champ" approach, then it would have been great for the likes of Golovkin (vs Canelo) and Kovalev (vs Ward), but it opens a whole other can of worms in most other cases.

 

its not fair written in that way.
i get why the champ would be 'more' favourable to give the round to but its not fair. so it shouldnt be a black n white rule.

if the round is hard to score, it should be EVEN

 

I disagree massively.

You should score each round based on who you think won that round. If you genuinely can't pick a winner of that round, then it can only be scored an equal round in my opinion.

I have no idea why why people think that the champion gets the nod on a close round. If anything, the onus should be on the champion to prove he is the champion and put that extra work in to get the round, but i don't even agree that should be the case, and i think that if you can't pick a winner, the round should be scored even.

My score cards often have more even rounds that the average official judges scorecard.

If you can't pick a winner, then the round should be a draw.

However if anyone can point me to an official rule that states othewise, i am happy to change my mind.

Just my views

 

Why? Would you provide some reasons as to why please?

 

What if it's two beltholders trying to unify a division? Who gets the preferential treatment then?

 

Even rounds aren't scored even enough. Anyone would feel inclined to choose one or the other fighter. I would. I would give it to whoever I think did best. This itself would be basis.

So is that a problem?

 

No. /end thread

 

I'm kind of fond of the rule that in a draw, the champ keeps his belts which is effectively a win. So that's my position there, but I like the idea of scoring even rounds, however it rarely happens and in practice appears to be discouraged.

 

This is one of the great misconceptions in boxing which was started decades ago by some commentators who don't have any idea what they are talking about. Good judges are trained to shut out all outside influences and only see red corner and blue corner whether it be 4rd novices or a 12 rd title fight. I know in reality it doesn't always work that way which is why weak judges who cannot overcome expectations of who is supposed to win, crowd bias, and their own personal bias should never be allowed the power to influence a boxers future earnings.