I think you do. If a fight is close enough to be a draw, you gotta give the fight to the champ. There are so many different styles out there and some are nightmares for certain opponents. The sign of a true champion is one who takes on all adversaries. If a guy doesn't win convincingly, he doesn't deserve the belt. That's the way I see it.
You worship Mike Tyson so what does your opinion matter? Anyways, fights are scored by rounds so you really can't "award" the fight to the champ if it's close. Stupid thread. Stupid thread creator.
no fights are scored round by ruond, you cant have 1 guy win the first 7 then the champ win the next 6 but score it a draw because it wasnt clear enough if someone wins 7rounds they win the fights
the name fighter gets given the benefit whether he is champ or contender if he is fighting in his home country.
I'll piggy back off of that and say that the criteria for winning individual rounds is the same in a championship fight. If you win the round by a slight margin you win it. The champ doesn't get a feebie for being the champ.
exactly :good i hate how people say you have to take the belt off a champ, but never say you have to defend it like 1 hopkins is my fave fighter maybe ever, but when people say taylor got a gift it is ludicrous people say taylor didnt do enough to take it from the champ but dont say hopkins didnt defend it like 1,
Your right jack I seen the telecast where tyson said he didnt want to fight foreman He would be dumb to fight foreman his jaw was iron,his punch was just as powerful as tysons at the time. And no one could intimidate big george tysons worst nightmare and only man that could of beat tyson at the time and he knew it.
If the fight is a draw, then the champ keeps his title. That's the only extra advantage a champ should get in a close fight. Judges are taught to score fights by the usual 4 categories, not to give close rounds to the champs.
No. The idea probbly dates back to the Newspaper or No dicision eara when in an atempt to end courpition in scoring a tittle chalenger could only win the tittle by stopage. Title fights like all boxing matchs are scored round by round, and the same factors that influence scoreing in a non title match influence tittle matches.
Come on now, Cappy is certainly interesting with his choices of who he hypes, but this is unwarranted. And what's wrong with appreciating a peak Mike Tyson? He was one of the best physical examples in the sports history and Caps appreciates that. There's also no point in digging in other posters, unless they really deserve it like a 'Carlito' type.
King, you seem like you've been around boxing long enough to know that the way things are and the way they should be sometimes don't add up. As much as people are disagreeing with Cap's stance, boxing itself practiced that attitude dozens, if not hundreds, of times throughout it's history- even if it didn't preach it. If a round was close, it usually went to the champ. You could even substitute champ for "hometown fighter" and the effect would be pretty similar.
According to the rules no but there is no shame in the champ getting the benefit of the doubt with the challenger being forced to define close rounds and championship rounds. Its one of those things that fall into preference like whether you like a boxer or brawler. It doesnt say in the rules that you are supposed to FIGHT but some peoples preference stipulate that they will favour the man trying to make a brawl.
How things are and how they should be is very different. If you want to say that the champ often gets special consideration, I can agree with that since there are plenty of examples of that. However, it should not be condoned and should be strongly discouraged and any judge that says that he scored a round for a certain fighter because he is the champ should never be allowed to judge again.
