One would have to beat a champion convincingly....

[RisAri0]

....in order to take the title from him. Hasn't this always been the case tho?

[Hougigo]

....in order to take the title from him. Hasn't this always been the case tho?

Were you not convinced last night?
I was

[pvenditto88]

1.Where in the rules does it say this?
2. Marquez clearly beat the champion.

[eklok]

Were you not convinced last night?
I was

yep , 115-113 ,114-114, 116-112

majority decision

[Doctor_Tenma]

It can't get more convincing than last night.

[The Gambler1981]

No that isn't the case, it is a silly thing because it implies there is an uneven playing field from the jump, who wants to see a sporting contest where one side starts with an advantage~

It is an excuse used to justify champs winning close fights~

[-Kev-]

If you beat the champion 8 out of 12 rounds, you actually lose 5-7 on the scorecards.


That's just how it is, I thought this was a given?


To win 7-5, you must win at least 10 rounds. 8 rounds don't cut it.

[Hougigo]

yep , 115-113 ,114-114, 116-112

majority decision

Hahaha... I feel bad for you.. I really do

[BigStereotype]

That's one of those baloney axioms like "he knows how to win." It doesn't mean anything. And even if it did mean something, Marquez DID win convincingly god dammit.

[BigStereotype]

If you beat the champion 8 out of 12 rounds, you actually lose 5-7 on the scorecards.


That's just how it is, I thought this was a given?


To win 7-5, you must win at least 10 rounds. 8 rounds don't cut it.

Thanks for clearing that up bro.