[MYTH] You got to BEAT the Champ

that's not the old adage, that you need to really beat up a champion to take his title. never has been that way in modern boxing it hasn't been acceptable for judges to score even rounds for some time. it used to be common. in fact, fights used to beconsidere draws if there was no knockout, and they'd bring in scorecards from writers and award "news paper decisions," or NWS. the lingering adage is that one should score rounds without a clear winner to the champion. and i don't see any problem with that in the context of a system that doesn't allow a judge to score a draw. i score them as a draw, myself, but pro judges are frowned upon for scoring rounds even. it may not even be allowed, but as far as i know it is still technically within their power to score round as draws, as it has always been. perhaps they should start to score rounds as draws more often. it will keep them from having a knee jerk reaction in regard to the neccesity to score a round when they don't see a clear winner. that is a dangerous recipe for favoritism of fighters, certain styles, being impressed by the crowd, etc. if judges can't easily pick a winner they should be allowed to score a round as a draw.

99% of Floyd haters disagree with you You're totally correct here.

Tis true, it is a myth. You can simply rob the champ.

Disagree. I thought Mayweather won both fights. Castillo gave up to many of the early rounds in the first fight. 99% of boxing fans disagree with you

A lot of cats from my generation say well you got to beat the champ when a fight is close. Meaning, you got to whup that asś to get the win. Getting the win just isn't enough, you need to do more than that. For example, well that was a close round but the challenger landed the cleaner punches and stopped the champ in his tracks once or twice that round. Nope, not enough cuz you can't have close rounds with the champ, champ wins those cuz he's champ. I used to regurgitate this when I was a kid --- mostly when telling people Hagler really beat Leonard and got robbed (which I now believe SRL won handily). As I got older and wiser I started critically thinking about the concept. Basically what these people are saying is the champ gets more points or something in a championship bout. Nah man, the champ can lose it close. All you need to do is win the round. Champ don'tget shít if he doesn't earn it and getting a belt doesn't give you imaginary points. You got to beat the champ is a myth. The champ gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm of that school of thought that a challenger needs to take the belt fro the champ.

Exactly not fair lol! You're the problem. If a round is close it's close. You don't give it to the champ cuz he's the champ! A round can be close but you score it to the guy that did more even if the more is slightly more. If you're a good judge with a trained eye, this shouldn't be a big problem. Don't partially quote me again like that and miss the context. The First part read. "I don't think it's a myth at all, but mostly only comes into play where the challenger is fighting defensively and scoring punches are few and far between" Add that on right before what you quoted and feel free to argue how an aggressive champion does not win rounds fighting a defensive fighter if there's not much in the landed punches? I also said this: "It's hard to argue that a champion wouldn't be given the benefit in close rounds. If there is clear punches landed then obviously not" My comment was not to agree that champion s should be given close rounds, which you see to imply by your response? I gave an honest opinion that aggression can win fights if a fight is close. Please argue that and not the drivel you responded.

Yep i agree. Score the fight round by round, then total those rounds up at the end and see what you got. A champ should be able to lose close rounds/fights.

But they do though and the guy below me admits it. Exactly not fair lol! You're the problem. If a round is close it's close. You don't give it to the champ cuz he's the champ! A round can be close but you score it to the guy that did more even if the more is slightly more. If you're a good judge with a trained eye, this shouldn't be a big problem. There is plenty of evidence out there. Hagler said he was never hurt, was never down, etc --- implying Leonard needed to do that to win. Hagler is referring to losing the fight as if the entire fight was one round. I think (don't quote me cuz I haven't seen the fight since it happened) Holmes said that about losing to Spinks too. I've seen 7,000+ Boxing matches and I've heard plenty of fighters and pundits say the same thing. Champ never got hurt, champ never got dropped, you need to TAKE the title from the champ. Implying you have to RIP it from their hands when all you have to do is win. Even if its by a hair. Yeah - plenty of guys take that sh1t as gospel... what I'm saying is that I reckon it's a myth that was started by someone misunderstanding the simple quote that you need to beat the champ to become the champ (ie the champion retains in the event of a draw). Just cos lots of people believe it, it doesn't mean it didn't all just start as a stupid mistake way back when. Problem is that this kind of meme can take on a life of it's own as evidenced by the many fighters and pundits that seem to believe it.. 'course, the real problems start if the judges believe that crap too.

No doubt, the judges start out with a totally unbiased view. No favoritism is shown and they score each round based on four factors, so an unknown fighter has an equal chance as the home fighter with a great rep. Every fan knows that. :)

Mayweather lost 8 rounds to Castillo who was the Champ what happened there ? Disagree. I thought Mayweather won both fights. Castillo gave up to many of the early rounds in the first fight.

Mayweather lost 8 rounds to Castillo who was the Champ what happened there ?

exactly, a judge is not gonna give you points for being a champ thats just ridiculous But they do though and the guy below me admits it. In a case like that, like Parker/Fury was scored 118-110 on 2 scorecards, then you have to say every close round went to the champion, which is fair. Exactly not fair lol! You're the problem. If a round is close it's close. You don't give it to the champ cuz he's the champ! A round can be close but you score it to the guy that did more even if the more is slightly more. If you're a good judge with a trained eye, this shouldn't be a big problem. I used to think it meant the same - then I figured out that it probably means something far simpler and more literal... merely that a draw won't cut it. To get the belts you need to actually beat the champ. In the event of a draw the champ keeps his belts. My guess is that whoever coined the phrase meant just that, and then, because people are people, folk just interpreted it however they chose. That's my theory anyway and I ain't found any evidence that I'm wrong yet. The idea that somehow the champ gets extra credit just for being champ is patently absurd when you think about it... although boxing being boxing I ain't surprised some folk have run with the idea. There is plenty of evidence out there. Hagler said he was never hurt, was never down, etc --- implying Leonard needed to do that to win. Hagler is referring to losing the fight as if the entire fight was one round. I think (don't quote me cuz I haven't seen the fight since it happened) Holmes said that about losing to Spinks too. I've seen 7,000+ Boxing matches and I've heard plenty of fighters and pundits say the same thing. Champ never got hurt, champ never got dropped, you need to TAKE the title from the champ. Implying you have to RIP it from their hands when all you have to do is win. Even if its by a hair.

You are damn right it's a myth and a stupid myth at that. The champion and his challenger are fighting for his title. When the bell rings for round one there is no champion only two boxers fighting for that championship. The fight is scored exactly the same way as any other fight. Whoever wins the round gets that round even if they just barely won it. The champ does not get the close rounds like Pascal tried to say. If the challenger just edges the champ by a single point he is the new champ. He doesn't have to be the aggressor and win by a large margin. He only has to win by a single point. There is absolutely nothing in boxing rules about the challenger having to take the title away from the champ by beating him convincingly. This was something boxing fans made up and they are wrong. ALL the challenger has to do to be the new champ is to win even by a single point and no favoritism is supposed to be shown toward the champion in scoring close rounds. The only advantage the champion has is if the fight is a draw he keeps his title.

A lot of cats from my generation say well you got to beat the champ when a fight is close. Meaning, you got to whup that asś to get the win. Getting the win just isn't enough, you need to do more than that. For example, well that was a close round but the challenger landed the cleaner punches and stopped the champ in his tracks once or twice that round. Nope, not enough cuz you can't have close rounds with the champ, champ wins those cuz he's champ. I used to regurgitate this when I was a kid --- mostly when telling people Hagler really beat Leonard and got robbed (which I now believe SRL won handily). As I got older and wiser I started critically thinking about the concept. Basically what these people are saying is the champ gets more points or something in a championship bout. Nah man, the champ can lose it close. All you need to do is win the round. Champ don'tget shít if he doesn't earn it and getting a belt doesn't give you imaginary points. You got to beat the champ is a myth. I used to think it meant the same - then I figured out that it probably means something far simpler and more literal... merely that a draw won't cut it. To get the belts you need to actually beat the champ. In the event of a draw the champ keeps his belts. My guess is that whoever coined the phrase meant just that, and then, because people are people, folk just interpreted it however they chose. That's my theory anyway and I ain't found any evidence that I'm wrong yet. The idea that somehow the champ gets extra credit just for being champ is patently absurd when you think about it... although boxing being boxing I ain't surprised some folk have run with the idea.

A win is a win. The challenger most definitely needs to beat the champ, but that can be done by outboxing the champ even if the challenger never hurts the champion and the champion finishes stronger.

I don't think it's a myth at all, but mostly only comes into play where the challenger is fighting defensively and scoring punches are few and far between. In a case like that, like Parker/Fury was scored 118-110 on 2 scorecards, then you have to say every close round went to the champion, which is fair. It's hard to argue that a champion wouldn't be given the benefit in close rounds. If there is clear punches landed then obviously not.

It's a myth that persists because each round is scored by a judge who is making a subjective decision. And most close decisions have people who thought it should have gone the other way. In other sports where points are clearly counted, there is much less room to debate as to whether winning a game 10-9 is legit.

I think people use the phrase incorrectly. If they say you've got to beat the champ, it's because if the champ wins OR gets a draw, the champ continues being a champ. The only way to become a champion is to literally beat the champ and get a win over them. If you lose or draw, you get nothing.

You could get the dog shit beat out of you for five rounds and edge out 7 unimpressive rounds and still win...

It's the dumbest cliche in all of sports. That would be like telling NBA teams they don't get a win unless they beat Golden State by more than 10 points.