The myth of the challenger having to remove the belt decisively.

Yep, it is bull****. Just a myth, it romanticizes the sport.

In the ring, the two fighters have to be judged equally.

 

Agree. Bouts should and are scored on a round by round basis. You win more rounds than the Champ, then you are then the Champ, simple really.

 

We had this the other day, and My view is the same, a win is a win, simple as that

 

It's BS and should never happen. The Champ has one advantage, if it's a tie, he keeps his belt. I do not have a problem with this so long as a mandatory rematch is his next fight.

 

agreed. Its a bull**** myth. Both fighters should be viewed the same when the bell rings. One doesnt automatically get a few points head start because he's got a belt.

Bull**** myth.

 

This should only apply to Joe Calzaghe I feel

 

You would.:roll:

 

I disagree, any benefit of the doubt should go to the champion. A champion should be defeated convincingly to add credability to the title. But credability and many championships are complete opposites now a days...

 

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the champion does not add credability to the championship ala Sven Ottke...

 

Sven Ottke got a tad more than the benefit of any doubt

 

I do empathise with what some say about this whole issue but in reality the fight should be scored over twelve rounds & whoever holds the title/bauble/trinkett should be irrelavent.

 

The fight is not scored over 12 rounds is it? It is actually, thanks to 10 point must, 12 mini fights; and IMO each of them 12 fights should be given to the champ if there is any debate who deserved to win.

 

I don't agree with the "you've got to take the title from the champion" saying. If you win more rounds, even just 1 more, then you deserve the title.

 

Fair point, but thats more of a case for allowing judges to score rounds even.