"The Challenger must take the title from the Champion"

I think it makes a difference on the decision. I think it helps determine whether you actually take the title home. Is it right? Should it stay that way? I dunno.

I like the philosophy though, because it makes for non-shitty title fights.

 

I think it's nonsense too. I like it as some idealistic theory, but certainly don't see how it gets applied. So if there's a close round do you just give that round to the champion because he's the champ? Rather than score it a draw or for the opposition if you think he may have nipped the round. How do you factor that when scoring a fight. I'm pretty oblivious to champ/challenger when scoring fights and don't see how that can be implemented into a scoring criteria if you believe this (It isn't). I think I understand it from a fighter's perspective, but it's a nice sounding saying that just doesn't compute with me. In the end, fights around score on a whole. If they were then this saying might make sense, but they aren't and for good reason. Perhaps this is an argument against round to round scoring. But if you put it that way, people wouldn't quite embrace that.

 

It's garbage, all fights should be on an even playing field.If anything you should expect more from the established champion.

 

A challenger should seek to do anything they have to in that ring to try and win the fight. If you can not stand and fight you dont what would be the point in wasting what could be your only shot at being the champion yourself. Both men are there to win how ever they think is the best way , any which way it may be.

I dont see why being a champion should mean prefferential treatment in the scores either. Obviously if the fight is a draw the champ remains so, but an even round is an even round and if a champ dosent like it i guess thats just the way she blows .

 

It can suck from our perspective , we get the boring fights , they get the belt i am sure they dont loose sleep over what the fans think.

 

Win the fight, win the title as far as Im concerned.

 

Great Avatar.:thumbsup

 

First of all, a title does not change hands on a draw-fact. Where there's doubt, the champion should get the benefit. Fights are supposed to be won by throwing punches and landing punches-fact.

Great champions become great champions by typically defending their titles as though they were challenging.

Pastrano beat Johnson by running, yes, but also by getting off first with his jabs before Harold countered to the body. In contrast to some accounts of that match, Willie did take the initiative by commencing the punching. Young continually retreated from Foreman, but also got off first with his double jab repeatedly. It was a very different performance from how he negatively approached Ali.

Bernard Taylor somehow got away with an outrageous hometown draw against Pedroza by running, while Eusebio stood in mid ring swiveling back and forth, waiting for him. In any other venue besides his home town, BT would have been ejected for his antics. (El Alacran deserved to retain the title on the basis of his vastly superior Ali shuffle alone.)

Who wants a shitty champion? Sometimes, what's in the best interests of the sport perhaps ought to be taken into account, and expressed desire is an element of that. Witherspoon did not deserve to beat Holmes. Like all other alternative titleholders during Larry's reign, aside from Weaver, Spoon had a chance to prove himself as a viable champion, and failed miserably.

Of course we can always go back to the days of no decision bouts and fights to the finish, and be done with it.

 

You win more rounds you win the fight.It's that simple imo.

 

It's complete and utter ****ing bollocks, the kind of shite that Jim Lampley says and the General Forum swallows as Biblical truth. It's the exact same thing as "the judges must have scored the blood" after one guy has a cut. Nonsense.

 

It can definitely be understood from this perspective, especially from a fighter's viewpoint.

 

Do you believe that the sound and crowd noise affects the judges? They say that does too.

 

Tite fight is scored like any other fight. 10pt. must system. If a round is perceived as being even by a judge, it is to be scored an even rd. This nonsense of gotta beat the champ bad, or close rounds go to the champ is bull****. And whats this crap when theres a close fight, usually with a popular, moneymaking champ, when theres a big delay in the decision, while the commision gathers the scorecards to check them, yea, right, there fixing it for the champ. Those cards should be tallied as they are, and whoever won, wins.