Exactly. The problem is some people think that if a round is close the judges should automatically give it to the champ just because he is the champ. If a round is so close that a judge has to use that as his reasoning for giving the round to the champ, then I'd much rather see him give a 10-10 round.
:good That is something that needs to be looked into, we hardly ever see judges give 10-10 rounds, they give it to one or the other, thats why you get these ****ing shitty scoring, because before the judges realise, theve given all the close rounds to one of the fighters and the scores look lop-sided:bart
''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.' Judge has to call each round as he sees it--------might take him 5 rounds to recognize the damage that the one fighters punches have caused --difficult for him to factor that in with the first 5 being history---no ? Okay for us watching to take that into account is what you mean ??
Whoever is better that night, even if by a small margin, wins the fight. In the case of a tie the champ keeps his belt. I'll take your word that Haglar said that after the fight, but he was wrong saying a challenger has to win convincingly to take the belt. He could very well argue that he won the fight though. A lot of people think Haglar did win. I watched that live on PPV and when the fight was over it was so close I had no idea who won, so I guess that would count as a draw & Haglar shoud have kept his belts if I was accurate. IMO, Haglar screwed himself by messing around the first couple rounds wtih his conventional stance. He should have gone on the attack from the opening bell.
Some guys just swell/cut easier than others. Sometimes the damage can come from a clash of heads. There's also bodywork to take into consideration.
I think it should be if you win you win, lose you lose, draw you draw. But now days it is who the bigger money maker of the two fighters wins, if it is a close contest.
Well lets look at the inverse of this "unwritten rule", which I think clearly illustrates how faulty it is. The champ doesn't ever have to win, as long as he isn't beaten decisively, and keeps it close, he remains champ. Does that sound right to anyone else? I didn't think so...........
The only ones who it sounds right to are the guys who **** and moan after their champ loses a close decision. When all else fails, claim your man got screwed because this unwritten rule wasn't followed. You'll see these same guys conveniently forget this rule when they're cheering for the challenger.