What is people's opinion when judging a championship fight when it is a close round? If the round is even, do you give the round to the champ because the challenger needs to "take the belt" or do you give it to the challenger if he is the fighter pressing the action and showing "effective aggression"? Obviously last nights fight being a prime example of close rounds with Taylor being the champ and Pavlik applying pressure. IMO with everything being even the aggressor should always get the nod, challenger or champ because boxing is about fighting and not dancing and hugging.
The expression you need to take the belt from the champion comes from if the fights a draw he gets to keep it . Back in the old days knocking the champion out was the only way you could win the belt and if it went the distance the champion would retain , 'hence you need to take the title from him' It does not mean that close rounds should be scored to the champion :shock: , of course if everything else is even the aggressor should get the nod unless the round is close enough to be scored 10-10 . I don't think Taylor v Pavlik is a good example of champ v pressure as basically what you're saying is Pavlik should have been given the rounds but wasn't simply because he was the challenger . I felt Taylor was just ahead as although Pavlik was more aggresive and busier , Taylor had the cleaner more precise work .
Yea it's pretty simple. The aggessor is the one bringing the fight. The counterpuncher's job is to make the aggressor miss and make him pay. JT only made him miss occassionally, and ate way too many jabs and right hands to qualify as "controlling the action." When you see the aggressor walking down the counterpuncher with jabs and right hands, it's the aggressor's fight. Those judges are better than what they showed last night. Dibella must give one hell of a handjob to sway them so much.
"Taking the belt" doesn't exist. Two man are in the ring and they must be measured equally to be fair. If a round is close, the one showing effective agression must be given the round because showing effective agression is a way of scoring points. Or the counterpuncher is he's succeeding in his job. If the round is totally even, 10-10.
