See IF U agree with me bout beating a Champ!!

[yeykax]

Im an old school dude and i dnt believe in just barely beating a champ in order to get a nod.Excuse me if u guys dnt agree with me but in order for you to get the win,you need to really beat the champ convincenly.Im talking about really putting a beating on him like Mosley did to Margo,or Hopkins to Trinidad.So do you guys are satisfy with the challenger barely beating the champ or do you agree with me on this subject!!

[portuge puncher]

Im an old school dude and i dnt believe in just barely beating a champ in order to get a nod.Excuse me if u guys dnt agree with me but in order for you to get the win,you need to really beat the champ convincenly.Im talking about really putting a beating on him like Mosley did to Margo,or Hopkins to Trinidad.So do you guys are satisfy with the challenger barely beating the champ or do you agree with me on this subject!!

100% agree,
preach on brotha, preach on

[The Gully Gad]

The champ should get the benefit of the doubt in most cases....
You have to beat the champ in order to win not the other way around
the champs just gotta sit back and defend that ****..

[daggum]

it depends on if you are a real champ or a paper champ who had to beat michael jennings/dmitri sartison type opponents. if you are the light heavy champ of the world you shouldn't lose to some slappy freak who just throws more but lands nothing and steals your belt.

[Shadow boxer 3]

i agree but i think some champs take adavantage of that by doin just enough to get by so they can keep there belt

[MANGLER]

Even a slight victory like 7-5 is still a victory. But challengers for titles can't afford to think that way. I agree you gotta really put a whoopin on a champ to get his belt on the cards.

[-MAKAVELLI-]

and THAT is why Hagler beat Leonard IMO