"The Challenger must take the title from the Champion"

Nonsense, if anything it encourages hometown decisions and lethargic champs going through the motions knowing they don't have to try their best.

 

I would personally say it helps to limit home town decisions, as any close decision be default gives the Champion the edge. And if a champ is lethargic, going though the motions, and the challenger still cannot win clearly, then he does not deserve the title!

 

If a round is THAT close & neither fighter has did more than the other then the round should be scored even rather than to the champion.

If the challenger wins the round by the slimmest of margins & the judges score it for the champion or even score it 10-10... they should be sacked IMO.

 

If the challenger wins the round, he wins the round. If a round has doubt as to who won, the champ should be given the benefit.

I am all for judges not scoring rounds even; they are there to judge, not to sit on the fence!

 

BINGO...very succinct.:deal

 

Again:deal!!

 

"The Challenger must take the title from the Champion"



I agree.

But each round should be judged and scored on its own merits without regard to which guy is champ.

What the adage means for me is in the event the fight gets scored even, the champion keeps his title.

 

:good

 

It's true though - in the event of a draw, the champion keeps his title. So you DO have to 'take' the title if you are the challenger - by winning via KO or a decision at least 1 round in your favour.

The idea that rounds should be scored any differently is nonsense.

 

No it would not, and it would totally expose fights that were robberies, if fights were scored my way.

Everyone rightly would have the mind set, the challenger clearly needs to win, to win the crown, anything else, and the champion retains. Thus whether you agree with my philosophy or not, there can be no doubt, there clearly would be less scope for a bad decision.

 

Great idea for a thread, Addie. This has always been one of the old boxing axioms that annoyed me most.

I agree with the consensus; it's a round by round deal. If an unsung challenger of a long-time renowned champion scores seven rounds while the champ gets five, then sorry buddy.....you and your popularity are ex-champions. I don't believe an ounce of extra credit should be given by virtue of the fact one guy holds the belt. That smacks of a loaded deck, as does the notion that a fighter should possibly have to alter his style and become aggressive so that he can say he "really took the title."

Complete hogwash. Fight your fight, add 'em up when it's done, and math alone should tell you the winner. There's enough sentiment in this game already.

 

I am much happier with the addage "a champion doesnt go out to defend their title, they go out to win it everytime"