You have to "take" a champion's title

[watchayouhead]

I haven't talked too much about the Kovalev vs. Ward fight because even though I lost 2k on the fight, I'm pretty disappointed in both Kovalev and the judges.

I'm disappointed in Kovalev because he fought a way too cautious fight. There was no slugging [fighting] going on in that boxing match. Neither fighter made a statement in that matchup.
Instead, they both fought too cautious, and neither had to show much heart. I wish it would have been a fight, instead of a sparring match.

Secondly, you should have to take a champion's title, the title-holder should get the benefit of the doubt in an even round, and a champion should get the benefit of the doubt in an even fight.

I watched the fight multiple times, with and without sound.
I gave Ward rounds 1, 3, and 11. So I scored the fight 117-110 for Kovalev. To make matters worse, Ward got 5 million, and Kovalev- the champ with 3 titles - got 2 million for the fight.

I truly believe that the fight was signed way too far out, and each fighter had the chance to get into each other's heads.

There should be an unspoken, unwritten, rule-of-thumb in boxing that says you have to respect a champion's dignity of the title. You can't give an even round, or an even fight, to a challenger. They should have to earn it.

Boxing, the sport we love, loses fans with bad decisions such as this.
Another thing that hurts boxing is when you pay 2 warriors millions, and charge fight fans a days wages to watch it, and the warriors don't fight.

No doubt that the re-match will be a war, and probably will be taken out of the hands of the judges.
But I don't think either one of these guys has a place in the ring with Adonis Stevenson right now.

They have to re-store their dignity, and the dignity of boxing first.

[bojangles1987]

"Taking" the title is a really awful thing boxing fans made up, and I don't get why people buy into it. All a fighter has to do is win enough rounds in the eyes of the judges. The idea that a challenger has to somehow do more to win a round than the champion is completely unfair and made up to justify robberies. "Oh, he didn't 'take' the title so it's okay that he was robbed against the champ." There's no other reason to stack the odds against a challenger that way. You're trying to protect a champion who can't win the fight clearly himself.

You don't have to take a goddamn thing. You just have to win, and winning narrowly or wide doesn't make a difference.

[Redd Foxx]

I gave Ward rounds 1, 3, and 11.

^That was bad enough...

But I don't think either one of these guys has a place in the ring with Adonis Stevenson right now.

But ^this tells me that you should take your $2,000 loss as a lesson, and never bet money on boxing again.

[Eff Pandas]

There is no such thing as a "benefit of the doubt" for title holders in close rounds. Thats some bs fan nonsense. If there is a tie for best actor at the Oscars they don't give the Oscar to the guy who's won the most Oscars in the past. If a game ends in a tie they don't just award the W to the team who's proven the most previously. If a round is close you give it to the guy who thought did more or the guy you'd least like to be or be bold & score it a draw. Their shouldn't be any lean towards the title holder in the scoring of a fight.

[Robbie Barrett]

Secondly, you should have to take a champion's title, the title-holder should get the benefit of the doubt in an even round, and a champion should get the benefit of the doubt in an even fight.

No they shouldn't, how is that fair?

[Redd Foxx]

"Taking" the title is a really awful thing boxing fans made up, and I don't get the reasoning. All a fighter has to do is win enough rounds in the eyes of the judges. The idea that a challenger has to somehow do more to win a round than the champion is completely unfair and made up to justify robberies. "Oh, he didn't 'take' the title so it's okay that he was robbed against the champ." There's no other reason to stack the odds against a challenger that way. You're trying to protect a champion who can't win the fight clearly himself.

You don't have to take a goddamn thing. You just have to win, and winning narrowly or wide doesn't make a difference.

The worst thing is when I see people say they had their scored totaled up, and THEN made the decision that you have to give it to the champ because it was close. lol And these people have the audacity to question the judge's decisions.
God forbid we score each round fairly and independently.

[Chollo Vista]

And the new!!!!

[Larry the boss]

well he took it....lol

[Eff Pandas]

Boxing, the sport we love, loses fans with bad decisions such as this.

Fair enough if you & others think this is a bad decision cuz I consider many fights that are within the margin of error of scoring bad decisions (like Bradley 7-5 over Marquez for me which far too many people see as the widest 7-5 fight in the history of boxing which I couldn't disagree with more), but this fight was close on like 90%+ of the scorecards I've seen of fans & pundits alike so I can't imagine many people are quitting boxing over a disagreement over 1 or 2 rounds.

[Larry the boss]

^That was bad enough...


But ^this tells me that you should take your $2,000 loss as a lesson, and never bet money on boxing again.

lol..........