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

No, we should just have one title and make everyone fight everyone like they did years back.

 

You are not "the champ" the second that bell rings. While your belt is on the line you do not own it. It is up for grabs. This is how people should view this nonsense.

If you have a million dollars, and place a million dollar bet, you are NOT a millionaire until the bet is won.

This is just another Kellerman styled means of telling the public that what they're seeing is not actually what they're seeing. "He may have won on a technicality like points, but he didn't TAKE it from the CHAMP, and he did NOT win the STORY of the fight. This is not a robbery"

 

I’d love to see that happen one day but I don’t think it ever will

 

A champ doesnt start the fight points ahead. Its dumb.

 

I think to to a certain extent the champ should get the benefit of the doubt defending his title only in rounds where its so close that it can literally be scored even. I'm saying that if you have to give such round to one fighter or the other, it should go to the champ as the challengers mindset should be that he needs to prove he's better than the champ.

I don't buy this notion however that the challenger has take it from the champ in a sense to aggressively go after him in an attempt to batter him.

 

I don't understand the logic. A fighter should not have to do much more than the champ. He should only need to do more. 7 rounds to 5 is good. A fighter should not need 9 rounds to get the nod.

 

Surely if you're 'the champ' your mind should be that you need to prove you're better than the challenger, otherwise you're not a 'champ' at all. Kinda works both ways

 

It would be like the Lakers getting to start every game up 8-0 at tip off.

 

Yeah or any team having to win by at least 8 pats by the end of the game.

Anyway I agree with @Brighton bomber and @IntentionalButt .

 

While I do totally disagree, this is totally rational and as good an argument as it gets for that side.

 

It's one of the things I absolutely hate about boxing. So much so that I posted this awhile back:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...-take-the-championship-from-the-champ.627605/

There's nowhere in the rules that says the champ will usually get the decision unless knocked out. Problem with saying 'clearly win' is that clearly is subjective and it opens the door for all the usual corruption that taints this sport. We have judges to make decisions based on what happened in the fight, not which fighter is supposed to get special favours.

 

Good idea. The astronauts in the ISS would also be harder to bribe.

 

I can't stand it either... " you have to rip the title from the champ "

No, every championship fight should start on and be judged on a level playing field and whoever is the better man on that given night.

 

Damn, the Islamic state already has a space program? Almost brings a mist to your eyes, doesn't it - thinking about how proud a papa bear Emir al-Zarqawi must be, smiling down from his luxury gossamer cloud-raft of virgins stitched together like a big flesh quilt, thinking 'ahh, from hiding in caves to riding the cosmic waves in under twenty years ...we done it, lads. Allahspeed!"

 

They could work it a number of ways.
I remember there was a scoring system somewhere in South America in the 1960s or 70s (Argentina, I think) where the awarded a DRAW in any fight where there was a close score.