Yes, although for some of them there's something more cynical going on, namely, the complicity of large swathes of boxing media and broadcasters in suspect decision making.
The benefit of doubt always goes to the champion that's why that phrase is used. There should be no doubt.
This is a simply absurd argument, and we are falling into the seven circles of hell within which the 10 point must thread resides. But here goes: Judges score fights not titles. It's really that simple and clear cut. Yes, the scoring system is very subjective but it's end goal is crystal clear... to find the winner of a fight not the owner of the belt. Now let's look at how judges are expected to score. Do they wait until the end of the fight, consider it close and then factor-in the bias towards the belt holder? No. They score round-by-round. You seriously think after each round they assess how they thought it went and then apply a bias to the title holder each time it's close? Judges simply do not apply this mythical advantage to champions after each round. Bearing in mind the judge's score is the total of points awarded on a round-by-round basis and only added up at the end of the bout, they actually can't apply one at all. They have no opportunity to. The phrase is BS....
ive made that argument before. the champ has already proven he deserves the title by having "taken" it, from the previous champ. he deserves the even rds, the rds you have trouble picking a winner. after all, he has already proven he belongs here, while the challenger may just be benefiting from a perfect situation in this particular fight, to make some rds closely competitive. im not saying give the champ rds, you feel the challenger rightfully won, but the rds that are 50/50 should go to the champ.
Boxing scoring is sort of stupid. A feel out first round can carry as much weight as a dominant 12th round.