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

Iv'e always taken the phrase to be said in context of boxing politics, Just like hometown advantage is often a real thing so can being a champion.The judges are human and can and are swayed by such things, the same with a crowd that is massively pro another fighter, all these things can and do sometimes effect certain judges weather its right or you like it or not. No fighter for example is going to fight a guy in his hometown and not think a close fight is going to go the way of the home fighter based on boxing politics, bias and corruption. I don't think the phrase was ever meant that even on a 100% even playing field a non champion has to do more than the champion to get the win. I always considered it said in terms of knowing there is a chance of bias and corruption which is a true fact and i would advise my fighter they do need to do more than the champion because there is a chance of this.

 

This content is protected

 

I think the weight this phrase carries is partly due to the near-unique character of a boxing title. In tennis, football, snooker, whatever, you hold a title only until the next time the competition (Wimbledon, Champions League, Masters, whatever) rolls around. Then everybody competes on an equal footing (apart from automatic qualification/seeding for some current titlists) until the winner is decided. In boxing, titles are held for as long as the holder can hold them. They are "their" titles more than the Masters is currently "Tiger Woods's", who is more of a leasee than an owner.

So perhaps this is why some subscribe to this notion that a challenger has to "take" the belt from the holder, rather than just turn up and win the fight. It does feel more like it's "theirs" than other sporting awards. It's still ******ed to think a challenger shouldn't be on an even footing with the holder though.

 

Close rounds always go to the champ

It’s human behavior

 

Tell that to Kovalev, Pac, Golovkin, Holmes, Hagler, Lara, Jack, Murata and such.

 

Yeah Round one is a 10-10, but I'm not sure where your doubt comes from with the second. It's a clear 10-9 for Haye

 

The rules of scoring.


There's nary a peep about differential scoring in favour of the champion.

 

I really find it hard to believe this hasn't been resolved yet

If anyone could point me to any ruling that states "in the event of a close round being 10-10 the judge needs to score to the champion"

for me in the event of a rare 10-10 round it under the rules be scored as such

anything outside of this understanding is otherwise agenda driven or just plain ignorance

 

I didn’t say it always happens, but it happens often