Who actually supports to the notion you must rip the title from the champ?

Don't forget popular fighters and the crowd involvement. I still cannot believe De La Hoya - Mayweather was a SD????

 

watch the eamonn magee fight, pure inside fighting, no holding.

errrrmmm , yeah, inside fighting is a bigger part of boxing than clinching to avoid it, that's illegal!! it's like literally running around the ring in circles to avoid long range fighting.

 

ranked top ten by three orgs before getting shot, stabbed and beaten. not to mention the hatton fight was the only one in his career which he actually trained for and stopped drinking and smoking.

doesn't matter who he was on the world level, he was picking hatton off with his slick southpaw style, so hatton had to neutralise him on the inside, magee even hurt him on the inside too, hatton came back well.

and Dirrell will probably continue to do it everytime he fights an opponent who actually throws punches at him.

 

I think it started as a reflection on the sad state of things; that the judges tend to favour the 'house' fighter -- i.e. the champion -- therefore you often have to be demonstrably better to get the win. But it's since mutated over time so that it's almost thought of as a de facto rule, which is bull**** as all it's doing is excusing lazy judging.

I don't like the rule about not scoring even rounds. It's a statement that a tied round cannot possibly happen, and that's just nonsense. I can understand the reluctance to encourage even rounds; they can act as a cop-out for the judges and can also be a subtle means of corruption; but not allowing them solves that problem by introducing a worse one.

 

I think it's a poor notion.

It effectively means the champion can get away with doing less. Despite his challenger performing better than him, he can still keep his hands on the belt.

And nowadays, it seems as though it's not just applied to champions. Popular fighters who have huge drawing power, also seem to benefit from this (eg Hatton/Collazo).

 

deal

/thread

 

Yeah like it worked for Castillo (champion) vs Mayweather.....atschatschatsch

 

The idea is bull****. You being the champ has no bearing on who wins the fight or how the fight is scored.

 

I've only seen the Froch/Dirrell fight when it originally aired but I remember him fighting like Froch. It was a very spastic night for both fighters where they appeared to be on the run more than the slick movers they were trying to portray themselves as. Here's the thing. A slick mover has control of the fight the whole time. These two guys are falling down, jumping out of the way, holding and falling. They're definately was an element of chaos brought on by their behavior.

 

I disagree!

Sincerely, Sven Ottke