Hey Guys! I've just watch the Vazquez vs Marquez Undercard repetition, the fight between Perez and Mares. It was a close call, but there was something I've been witnessing for quite some time... The Champs Advantage. It seems that whoever holds a belt against a contender already could enter the ring with at least two rounds in favor in the back pocket. There is such an unwritten golden rule that whenever you face a Champion you'll need to beat him nuts or totally outclassed him in order to win. Seems that 100% won't do anymore (see Cintron vs Martinez or Ruiz vs Holyfield for instance). This perception is widely acceptable by sport "gurus" that could make the case for any lost champ to hold his belt and carry on, and I wonder why and when this all started because to me they are supposed to matching out similar opponents to see which one is the best regardless of how many belts they hold entering the ring. I mean if you are a true champion doesn't have to prove so in the ring? It's nonsense, I can accept the draw because it was very very close, but I cannot take that you will have to do more than enough to win a title, meantime the reigning champ should do only at least to retain it. Any other close calls?
I disagree. During the fight I heard one of the showtime guys speaking and he said "this fight is close but I still dont see Mares doing enough to win" meaning this fight could be a draw right now but why would the judges lean in favour of Mares? In the end I believe he did enough in the last rounds to take it but thats not the point here, it was a close fight. These guys are professionals and we already know they have skills but what we dont know is if the challenger has enough in him to dethrone the champ.
I know but my point is why there is that perception that the challenger must prove way beyond doubt to take down a champ is just not fair enough...
I think it has to do with "earning" your belt. It doesn't necessarily mean it's right, it's just become something of a boxing custom to an extent, and if your the challenger you should go in knowing this.
Just think, apparently Mares did not take! the title from the champ, yet he threw over a 1000 punches if i recall.:huh I had Mares a clear winner
First of all this is not the amateurs is not how much you throw is how much you land and how hard and effective are the punches you land. You can slap all day but if those punches dont do anything and the other guy is hurting you with his the other guys wins. Plus dont go by those stats cause they are never acurate :hat
Its also how much work you do for the duration of the 3 min. I gave Perez credit for the harder shots he was landing in the middle portion of the fight but his punchers did not have the same power on them down the stretch, neither was he as active down the stretch. Agree but give or take a bit here and there you can get a ruff idea, pretty sure Mares threw as many as Perez, if not not more.