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

**Hougigo** · 11-13-2011, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by RisAri0

....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** · 11-13-2011, 05:00 PM

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

**eklok** · 11-13-2011, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by hougigo

Were you not convinced last night?
I was

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

majority decision

**Doctor_Tenma** · 11-13-2011, 05:00 PM

It can't get more convincing than last night.

**The Gambler1981** · 11-13-2011, 05:01 PM

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-** · 11-13-2011, 05:06 PM

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** · 11-13-2011, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by eklok

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

majority decision

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

**BigStereotype** · 11-13-2011, 05:09 PM

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** · 11-13-2011, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by -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.

Thanks for clearing that up bro.

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