I was reading a thread below about shane mosley vs cotto fight, about its chances of being a draw. I then remembered having watched the post fight press conference between marvin hagler and sugar ray. Hagler in the conference was pissed, he said if you fight a champion and you do not win convincingly the fight goes to the champion. If you score a draw or a split decision then the fight goes to the champion. I know this is the old law of boxing but do you guys think this law is out the window? I personally think Cotto won the fight because I believe in this law, though I think Mosley hit Cotto hard enough and often enough to score it a draw. This thread isn't about Cotto fight but about such a law being fair or not, whether a champion needs to be beaten convincingly to be de-throned. I am calling it a law and not a rule cuz I do not know if it is official or not. What do you guys think?
Personally, if you win the fight, you win, I couldnt give a **** if you didnt 'take the belt from the champ' ****, I think thats bollocks, a win is a win in my book
Co-Signed:deal If a champion didn't do enough to win, he loses his title. That's why we have the saying "It's easier to get to the top, than it is to stay there"
Maybe bull****. But you have to agree this rule does affect judges' decisions, especially the older ones. Even among fans, you have to admit, it is there influencing decisions. This is why people were so furious when PBF beat DLH. They wanted DLH to go down in a ko and didn't happen. PBF won his legion of haters that day. DLH used the law as an excuse when interviewed after fight. I believe PBF DID win that fight, however. It was just unfortunate to be called a SD.
Exactly, if you deserve to win, you should win, regardless of whether your the champ or not, although I realise it doesnt always work like that
I go with that as well---the old "got to be seen to have taken the title from the holder" is what fans would like see -but is not valid---I have a long serving WBC official friend, but he's not available to confirm this point ---so many grey areas in boxing what with all the different associations and their interpretations !!!!!! the need for uniformity is critical.. :smoke
i think you have to do a pretty damn good job beating the champ but thats just me....but nowa days we cant even get a good score on a fight.... so not like it matters
Taking the title off a champion, is the right way imo. It all depends on who is the champion at the time though, maybe if Calzaghe beat Collins for his title it would have looked better than his vacant title fight with Eubank. but a vacant title fight can be just as genuine, look at Hopkins - Jones.
I have found this whole "you have to beat the champ convincingly" thing is simply another way for bitter fans to ***** when their guy loses a close decision. There is no rule in boxing that says you have to beat the champ convincingly. No judge is obligated to adhere to an unwritten rule. I always ask people who favour this rule, how would you feel after a very close fight if a judge said "I thought the challenger won the last round, but I gave it to the champ since the fight was so close." There is enough problems with scoring in boxing already without a bulit in bias being adopted in championship fights.
"1 champion per division" These guys were like Gods so most judges would have had a natural [even subconscious] bias to favour the champ in any close scoring round-----I Theeenk ?:smoke
I agree with you, a win is a win. Many guys have become champion by winning close, hard fought, even disputed decisions over the title holder. The gift decisions that Ali got over Young and Norton were bull****. "You have to go after the champion and take it from him" is a big, stinking crock of hot steaming bull dung, in my opinion. In Ali's case, in my opinion, and in the opinions of many, he deserved to lose to both Young and Norton (#3) and the reason he kept his title on those occasions, is that the same judges for the fight probably served in the O.J. Simpson jury.
You just have to win more rounds than the champ. The champ's advantage is that he keeps the belt on a draw, but you judge it without thinking about who is a challenger and who has the belt and all that.
Shane hit Cotto with hard pushed arm punched right hands. One at a time. Meanwhile Cotto was hitting him with everything but the kitchen sink flush and often. Even in the later rounds when he was boxing and moving, Shane was doing nothing but getting counterpunched by Cotto. If a fight is close or a draw it goes down to clean effective punching. I look at facial damage and things like that b/c that is also a tell tale sign who is landing shots if I am ever in doubt.