Does the challenger have to do more to win the title?

Yes. /end Could be wrong, but I think the "/" is supposed to represent "end", so, you're kind of saying "end end" But again, I could be wrong. Carry on.

More meaning win more rounds and end up with more points after 12. The advantage the champ gets is keeping the crown in a draw.

It shouldn't matter who is champion in the fight. Judges should judge the fighters equally, whichever fighter wins more rounds and scores more points in the judges eyes should be the winner! Close fights shouldn't automatically go to the champion, it should go to the better fighter that night! You are missing the point; the fight will always go to the fighter who wins most rounds and gets the most points (almost always the same thing). The question is who the close rounds and genuinely even rounds get awarded to, and how the judges decide. I think you would have to be very niave to believe a fighters profile and popularity doesn't have some impact on that, even if it is totally unconscious. In some cases it can be blatant.. going back a bit Ali won an awful lots of rounds he shouldn't have IMHO just because he was Ali.

It shouldn't matter who is champion in the fight. Judges should judge the fighters equally, whichever fighter wins more rounds and scores more points in the judges eyes should be the winner! Close fights shouldn't automatically go to the champion, it should go to the better fighter that night!

Are u saying if the fight is a draw, the champion should be given the win? Or is keeping their title enough? Many people here have said that Dirrell didnt do enough to 'take the title'. What about if there was no title? Then it would have been ok if he got the decision? Dirrell arguably did enough to win. However he didnt do enough to start crying robbery.

Are u saying if the fight is a draw, the champion should be given the win? Or is keeping their title enough? Many people here have said that Dirrell didnt do enough to 'take the title'. What about if there was no title? Then it would have been ok if he got the decision? Used to be that way, it's not supposed to be now. I had Dirrell winning and the point that was deducted was absurd, considering the number of fouls from Froch in the fight. I think he means if you have an even round, perhaps you should give it to the Champ, though I don't agree with that either.

I believe that yes...The challenger as gotta take the title that and if there is any benefit of the doubt the champ should get it..... Are u saying if the fight is a draw, the champion should be given the win? Or is keeping their title enough? Many people here have said that Dirrell didnt do enough to 'take the title'. What about if there was no title? Then it would have been ok if he got the decision?

What should happen and what sometimes does are different things. IMHO it depends who the defending champion IS, rather than being champion per se. An up-and-comer will have a much harder time taking the title from a big name than that same big name would have taking it from a relative unknown making a first defence. One problem, I think, is that judges are so reluctant to give drawn rounds. As they usually insist on giving a drawn round to somebody any unconcious bias they may have is likely to favour the champ who tends to accumulate such rounds.

He has to do more than the champion. But thats it. He doesnt have to go beyond the call of duty or anything. If you win 7 rounds, you win.

NO... judge ROUND by ROUND... accordingly to who did what, and who actually WON the round... not WHO the fighter is. When the bell rings, it's fighter A vs fighter B.

I believe that yes...The challenger as gotta take the title that and if there is any benefit of the doubt the champ should get it.....