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

[The Noose]

If a fight is close, does should the decision automatically go to the champion?

If u score a fight without any bias, round by round, how is it possible to give favour to the title holder?

[The Gully Gad]

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.....

[ИATAS]

Obviously not, since Jermain Taylor was able to "take away" Bernard Hopkins' titles without doing much of anything.

In the end, there are 12 rounds and each round must be scored.

If all the rounds were clumped together as one big round, then yeah, that would make sense. But you need to think of it as being 12 mini fights, and whoever wins the most of those mini fights is victorious.

More important may be "homefield advantage." I do believe in certain circumstances judges can be more inclined to score a round for the hometown fighter if the fans are going crazy over something they may or may not have done in the fight. Take the Mayweather vs Oscar fight. The crowd would go nuts whenever Oscar would throw a flurry of punches, even if not a single punch landed. Judges being at the angle they are at, may not be able to see clearly that most or all of the punches were blocked/dodged, so they incorrectly score that round for Oscar (which is why the it was a split decision when clearly Mayweather won that fight easy). Same with Froch vs Dirrell. Froch would throw a flurry of punches and dirrell would dodge 99% of them, but the crowd would go crazy. Remember, the judges don't have the benefit of watching the fight on TV. There is a judge on the North side of the ring, a judge on the West side and a judge on the East side. So all three judges are watching from different angles (which also explains why we sometimes see three totally different scores for a round).

[THE REED]

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.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

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.

[The_Visitation]

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.

[The Noose]

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?

[Jim Jeffries]

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.

[Dirk Diggler UK]

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.

[Pretty Boy1]

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!