"The Challenger must take the title from the Champion"

In response to thread title - What a load of **** !

Ive never felt that way, Hagler is a whiney ***** that lost fair & square albeit in a close fight... if you lose more rds than your opponent you dont deserve to walk away with any title & I dont care if your the champion or the challenger, the winner is the winner & thats that.

 

Agreed:good

 

Its an old chestnut that has no validity today,when two men contest the title the judges should see them as two boxers ,a red, and a blue corner . Being champion should be parked in the dressing room till the fight is over Why should the challenger have to do more than the champ, to win the verdict? Champions give this lip service ,because it works in their favour ,but it is crap.

 

Haglar may have had strong feelings about the idea that you need to "take the title" away from the champ. In his first title fight he let off the gas in the last few rounds, and Antuofermo got the benefit of the doubt. Years later Marvin did not get the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to understand why Haglar may have felt he was entitled. It's not easy to understand why Marvin screwed the pooch in both fights!

Anyway, in my opinion, a fight is a fight is a fight. You score one round at a time based on ring generalship, clean punching, defense, et. Titles should not play any sort of roll in how rounds are scored.

 

Marvin's opinion always was that the champion had the advantage so the challenger has to take it to the champ. But more sour grapes on Marvin's part.

 

ON THE NOSE! bb

 

Duodenum, I quoted you because you reference Willie Pastrano...I say the thread title is total bull****...a new champion should be crowned even if he wins by one point..the two big robberies I witnessed in the 70's, Ali-Norton III and Ali-Young should both have gone to Ali's opposition...in my opinion.
Pastrano won his title from Johnson by the narrowest of margins, and so be it..like it or not...that's the way it should be..he won it fair and square on the judges/ref's scorecards. These type of "coronations" may not always be popular, but I believe that you should be able to beat the champ by making him come to you!!

 

And I second that!!!:deal

 

Not always.:good

 

I have always been of the old school opinion, you need to beat the champ well. Any benefit of the doubt should always go to the champion.

 

This is how I wish it would be in my perfect boxing world:

When a fighter puts his title up for grabs in a defense, the second the fight starts the belt shouldn't belong to anyone. "The Belt" should be in a fictional no man's zone, directly between the fighters. It shouldn't be around the fighter's waist who came into the ring, as theoretically it's a 50/50 shot it's not leaving with him. I know human factors come in way too much to make this much of a reality, but that's how I've always wished it would be.
I've always hated people saying "you have to take the belt from the champion" or "he's the champion." No, all you have to do is win that one certain contest in the dictated rules of the bout. Just because Fighter A entered with the belt doesn't mean he gets a better chance of holding on to it. It's basically saying, the champion may have lost the fight, but since he's the champion he'll get to keep the belt. Does that sound right?

 

Why, T? If you win, you WIN

 

The challenger must clearly show himself the better fighter to win the title. Any doubt must go to the champion, who would of won his title in a similar vein.

I liked the Argentinian way of old; if you do not win clearly, the fight is a draw. It stops robberies, and makes the sport fairer.