"You have to take the title from the champ"

I somewhat agree with it as a challenger you have to TAKE it from the champion.

 

No it's stupid. If you feel the challenger won by one point or the slimmest of margins then he should get the nod

It's like giving usain bolt the gold medal if he loses by 0.01 seconds just cuz he's the defending gold medalist.

 

Just a dumb saying, meaningless.

You have to (on an individual RBR basis, tallied up at the end) outpoint your opponent or knock him out.

 

Yup. This issue had been put aside for sometime especially if it favors some cash cow. Some challengers just rely on scoring like the amateurs to get a belt nowadays. It's like never mind, we paid the judges just make the win a little believable to avoid criticism....

 

Define this. If the champ loses a round 10-9 on your card (or, would if you thought you were just watching a regular bout and not realizing one man held a title) but the challenger didn't fulfill your criteria of "taking" anything from him in that round, you what - don't score it 10-9 for the challenger?

You can't have two separately defined sets of criteria. There is doing enough to win a round/fight and that needs to be universal whether anything is on the line or not.

 

Nah.

Did Mikey Bey take it from Miguel Vazquez? No, they stole it from Vazquez and give it to Bey.

Guys like Broner was basically just handed his first (he fought a bum for a vacant title).

Senchenko bought one.

I think it only really applies to guys who are not well back by power house promoters, have the backing of TV companies, are from countries which don't get a lot of boxing coverage, etc.

 

It seems unfair to me. I you win by one point, you win by one point.
I can accept to let the benefit of the doubt for a well established champ making his 10th defense or something like that, but otherwise no. Btw I had B-Hop winning both Taylor fights by one point and just can't get he didn't get the nod.

 

People do it anyways with the favourite or more established guy they usually get the mid in very right rounds due to 'ring generalship'

 

You have to take the title away from the champ in the sense that, in my opinion, the champ should be given the round if it's a draw/can go both ways. That doesn't mean the challenger has to dominate the fight to win, just has to win convincingly.

 

But if the round is a draw or could go either way I'll give the nod to the champ. If I think someone won the round I'll give them that round, but if I'm on the fence I'll default to the champ

 

yes, i believe the champ should get the nod when all else appears equal. a rd that would otherwise be an even rd should go to the champ. if you are the champ, then you have already proven that you belong at the top and you shouldnt be replaced by a challenger who may just be fighting the fight of his life and will be a flash in the pan.
this is only on otherwise even rds. if the challenger clearly did better, then he deserves the rd. i think scoring this way ensures that the actual best fighter keeps the crown.

 

I think it's really about who the bigger name is. for example, DeLaHoya didn't TAKE anything from Sturm, but he was the much bigger name thus getting the benefit of the doubt from the judges.

 

Exactly my thoughts but better than how I explained it :good