'The challenger has to take the Championship from the champ'

So it would seem.

 

No he doesn't !

 

I think these reactions are taking the statement for something that it isn't. I don't think it stretches (or tries to) as far as the challenger having to outwork the champ by a distance to deserve the win, or anything like that.

The way I always saw it, is if there is a dead even round, where its tough to split them by first, scoring of punches and secondly, who tried to take the fight to who in the round.... Then yeah rather than give a 10-10 (which I think we all should avoid doing where at all possible) I will maybe edge it to the champ.

However, if the challenger marginally wins a close round, he wins the round, that's that. I don't think there is really any more to it than perspective. Mostly in attitude of the viewer where you expect the challenger to come in and take it to the champ.
In essence, my attitude would always be, is the champion getting beaten here? If the answer is, yes, by the smallest of margins, then the answer is still yes, though.

 

i say he does.

 

That's Ok.

You're just wrong.

 

This is however where I disagree. An even round is an even round. There is no need to give an even round to one of the participants and there is even less logic in giving it to the champ simply because he is the champ.

If we want scoring and judges to be impartial, then we have to hold to the line which is "score it as you see it" NOT "score it as you see it but if it is even give it to the champ".

Challengers are up against it in most instances in having to travel to the champ. Why should we make it more difficult to win simply because someone is the challenger. To me, this condones home town decisions.

 

says who?

 

Still disagree. The champ was a challenger once. Does winning one fight then entitle the new champ to an advantage in every successive fight? Take the example of Burnett vs Donaire. Donaire won because Burnett experienced a back injury not related to being punched. Does Donaire now deserve an advantage over every challenger because of Burnett's bad fortune? There are numerous examples of boxers winning a belt through injury, corruption or simply good fortune. In my opinion, this does not entitle them to any advantages in their next fight simply because the now hold a belt.

 

It's nonsense, in the way that you have to win clearly.
The beltholder/champion already only has to draw to keep the title, so winning 7 out of 12 rounds, or 6 and dropping your opponent already "takes away" the belt from your opponent.

What it means nowadays is that the beltholder/home/featured fighter gets awarded the win in many cases, without actually winning the fight. Strangely that so called "unwritten rule" won't come up when the champion/beltholder is forced to fight in the opponent's backyard, because then suddenly it doesn't apply anymore. Kovalev vs Ward, Manny vs Bradley and Golovkin vs Alvarez as clear examples.

 

I think it could be counted on one hand how many rounds I have seen as totally even before. I always pick a winner, that's how it should be in my opinion. Often I feel that, to judge a round as totally even is being lazy, you've probably missed a punch or its effect on the opponent, or the impetus of the fighter who is on top, if you're scoring a round 10-10. That's not to say it never happens, but it's extremely rare, for me. That's my personal opinion.

I understand your point but I'm saying if it is beyond possible to pick a winner by a miniscule amount then I'd go with the champ so long as he has done something in the round. If neither fighter lands much at all and its a bad round then yeah I'm not gonna give that to a champ just because he's a champ.

In other words, the amount of times where that comes into play with me and how I score are very very few.
The challenger could nick every round he wins by a difference of one jab in the fight and he'd still be the winner, so it's not like the champ holds some significant advantage via this idea.

 

There are many instances where there are rounds that are mostly or even completely even, or extremely hard to score for one boxer due to the nature of quality vs quantity. The first round often is a feelout round with neither boxer actually doing much, or sometimes nothing at all.
I wonder how you scored round 1 and 2 of Haye vs Audley for instance, with zero punches landed by either guy, just a couple of poses and occasional misses... would you give it to Haye for throwing and missing just a little bit more with 0% connect rate, or for Audley for being a little more "economic" with his own 0% connect rate?! Neither on ring generalship of course because they both seemed "afraid" to engage up until the 3rd round.

Even rounds are often just that, with fans of fighter 1 scoring it for him, fans of fighter 2 scoring it for the other and the fans and officials that are neutral (or supposed to be, but hardly ever are) should score it even.

 

To say there are many instances, is the point where we disagree. I'm not disputing that dead even rounds do happen, and that is fine, they're rare though.
I'd have thought though, that we'd agree that too many people score a 10-10 round way too regularly when a winner can definitely be picked for a particular round.

I don't remember what I had the rounds in that fight, or what happened in them. But if they were as you described then they were 10-10's. I do doubt it though, each to their own opinion but, its rare that it's the case in a round, in my opinion.
I normally always see something that wins a round for a fighter. It isn't solely, punches landed which wins a round. Its the effect the punches have, the intent shown by each fighter, the skill of being elusive etc.
At the end of the day, if you do nothing in a round, you're taking the risk of losing it. You know that when you're in there, so it's not like it's an abomination to score it one way.