Why don't people like the phrase, "take it from the champ"?

Because winning by a single point is all that's required. We already have cash cow fighters who get the benefit of every doubt. I don't care to extend that to every reigning champ, might as well have them start off 3 points up.

 

The Champ should have a slight advantage. Otherwise you have a lot of
undeserving, one hit wonder champions like Haye over Valuev. Or
John Ruiz over anybody.

 

Then potentially you have an unworthy champion remaining in place because they're relying on that advantage, it doesn't any sense.

Fights should be scored objectively and the guy with the most points wins, that's all.

 

But they aren't scored objectively. What percentage of fights are questionable or arguable after a decision / Or in Fury or Lennox's case after a TKO. So, yes, I would rather see a championship NOT change hands unless it is a definitive change. You can't hug and dance and pick up a belt.

 

GTFO.

 

The champ already has the benefit of not losing his title in the event of a draw. He literally doesn't prove he's the best but still gets recognized as the champion. Tipping the scales even further in his direction makes a mockery of the sport, might as well go back to the mafia days when fights were regularly fixed if we're just going to stack the deck against challengers.

 

No...He just has to win the fight, he doesn't have to extra win it or ko, or bludgeon, just win the ****ing fight...Load of bollox having to really make sure you win, that's what your trainer should be telling you to get the extra out of you, but a judge or ref should score purely on a rbr basis

 

This

 

I am pretty sure the phrase was coined by shady ass promoters some time ago.
That's boxing for you.
And dummies til this day take it as an actual scoring criteria.

 

Why don't boxing fans like a phrase that promotes robberies?

It's a mystery.

 

Every fight is just another fight - and scoring ought to be done in a vacuum regardless of who entered with a belt, who is up on points heading into the round, etc.

There should be no more onus upon a challenger to 'clearly win' than on the champ. Both should be aiming to clearly win. Period. A close fight can absolutely go the challenger's way (say a 7-5 decision where the challenger won 6 very clear rounds and then just edged a seventh close but clear).

 

The phrase does not mean that the champ gets any advantage when it comes to scoring.

A championship fight should be scored in the same manner and with the same degree of even-handedness as any other bout.

It just means that if the final score is a draw, then the champ keeps his title.

Nothing more.

 

I actually agree with "you have to take it from the champ" .... because 'winning' an extreme razor close fight can easily be disputed. In just about any razor-close 'one point margin' fight, you'll probably find just as many people saying the other guys shouldn't have won it, and several saying it should have been a draw. There's a lot of doubt surrounding the decision.
A champion shouldn't lose his title in a fight that isn't decisive, if there's all this ample room to doubt. And by the same standard, he would have had to WIN the title decisively to be champion in the first place.
It's commonsense.
The win should be beyond the margin of human error.

People say "it's just another fight" are wrong. It's a title fight.
At least that used to mean something.

 

Would the champ gets a two point buffer in case of closeness to make up for "human error"?