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

Shouldn't the champ be setting the standard anyway?

He shouldn't really be relying on "the benefit of the doubt"

If a guy wins more rounds of boxing than another he deserves the nod

 

you got to remember back in the day the rule to win the title was to beat the man with the title...I.E knock him out. usualy there were no end to the fight till one man gave up or was knokced out. if it went on for time and niehter would stop then they just stopped it there and then and the ttle went back to the champion....that means that the champion could of got beaten up piller to post for 48 rounds get knokced down 30 times and then end a draw
so while there were decisions later on. they were usually biased towards the champion as this was the way of the world

 

I don't get it. I'm reading here that if the champ does not fight as well, or score as many points as his opponent, as long as the fight is close the champ does not lose? What a load of garbage. If a round is close enough for a judge not to be able to determine who wins that round, then they should both get the same score for that round, it should not go to the champ or the challenger.

 

Agreed! The moment both champion and challenger step into the ring, the belt becomes vacant until the end of the bout.

That's the idea. The reality, unfortunately, is that many subscribe to that notion, including judges.

 

This **** started happening around the time of Ali in the late 70's and it continued on with Holmes..you just cannot beat them

 

And yet Holmes lost his Championship on a close decision...

 

I beleve this idea comes from the no-dicision or newspapre-dicision days when tittles were only changed with a stopage.

 

I agree with the majority here but I think that this myth actually comes from judges having a tendency to give the close rounds to the champ, or that usually the champ will defend his title in his own backyard or finaly that if the fight ends in a draw, the belt stays with the champion.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

So basically all a Champ has to do is make a round "debatable" (whatever that means) and the round belongs to him?

Can you explain why 10-10 rounds exist? Let me help you. They exist because if a round is fought to draw... it should be called as such.

This rule was invented for cry baby former Champs who lost their belts in a close fight.

 

Yeah thats a totally ignorant saying and people do buy into it. When the fight starts it should be scored based on who does the better work not who has the belt.

 

True, it's a total crock.

The fighter who performs better, even if by a hair, should win the fight, regardless of whether or not he holds some title belt or other bauble.

 

obviously if you win more rounds you deserve the title the whole saying comes into play when there is an extremely closeround that could swing either way, usually that round will go to the champion.

I'm not saying i agree with this but it seems that some of the posters think that it means that if the challenger wins 7 rounds and the champion 5, the champion still keeps the belt.

case in point:

 

No, you should always give the benefit of the doubt to the Champ, and IMO there should not be even rounds, a judge is there to judge, not sit on the fence.

 

I think the myth comes from a round by round basis. if a round is close. it could go either way, they will give it to the champ.

 

It's just an excuse used when a win goes unrightfully to the hometown champion. I also can't stand this BS.