You have to "take" a champion's title

[KLockard23]

Uh, yeah, the challenger does have to do more than the champion. They're the challenger and not the reigning champion for a reason. If the fight is ever close, the champ should absolutely get the nod.

[KillaCamNZ]

Uh, yeah, the challenger does have to do more than the champion. They're the challenger and not the reigning champion for a reason. If the fight is ever close, the champ should absolutely get the nod.

Why? He won his last fight before this one - great. So why should that result, influence judging of the fight in the present?

Additional thought - Do we expect and accept referees giving the Patriots the rub of the green on the football field, because of past success?

[richardt]

There is nothing in the boxing rule books that has any reference to having to "take a champion's title". You score a round for one guy or the other or a draw. You don't lean toward any fighter for any reason at all that has to do with being a champion or a contender. Fights are scored one round at a time and added up, period.

[LoadedWraps]

I don't necessarily agree with the definition a lot of you have for "taking" a champs title.

I agree with the statement "you have to take a champs title" but I don't apply that to round to round scoring. I score my rounds fairly and without bias.

Where I apply the statement "you have to take a champs title" is when it comes to ring generalship and demeanor in the ring. Are you pushing the fight? Are you using effective aggression? As the challenger you have to "beat" the champion - don't go in there and survive. Take the fight out of the dog.

[KLockard23]

Why? He won his last fight before this one - great. So why should that result, influence judging of the fight in the present?

Additional thought - Do we expect and accept referees giving the Patriots the rub of the green on the football field, because of past success?

Because he's the champion, dummy. He currently holds the most prized possession in the sport (at least one of the half dozen of them anyway.) He's the one with the thing the challenger wants, so if a fight is close, I can understand why the judges favor the champion a little.

I dunno, maybe it doesn't make sense. But I feel there should be more prestige to being the champion. I wouldn't even be against a rule that says you have to KO/TKO the champ (or alternatively, win every round) in order to win the title.

As for your second point, the answer is No because football teams don't have to defend championships.

[BillyBoxing]

^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.

Regarding the glasses "deal with it", cool stuff as it somehow hide the broken face of the home decision champion.

[soul_survivor]

Spot in ts.

Taking the title was something that used to be very relevant in boxing and is still used in fights today that are properly scored and/or not run by corrupt organisations.

Take on of the most famous of alis rivals for instance, Ken Norton. Everyone concedes all 3 fights were close but the final one is often viewed as one of the more controversial fights in history. Norton supposedly landed more but Ali was busier. However, many at the time concluded that Norton had not done enough to take the title.

The judges obviously agreed with that assessment.

[BillyBoxing]

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.

You're right, that's boxing, but I can understand Kovalev being salty, since he hardly collected the 3 belts, then Ward comes, only land jabs and do it tricky in order to make the fight close (because Eff, let's get it straight, Kovalev landed the most significant blows of the fight) and go back home with all the belts + run his mouth.

Ward is just like Floyd, he looks nice, but he's doing any damage.
Pro boxing is only about damages.

Maybe with olympic rules I woulda score it for Ward.

Remember Calzaghe vs Hopkins, Calzaghe didn't do any damage but AT LEAST he outlanded, outworked Nard, that's not even the case.

Saying "Ward won the last 6 rounds" is an overstatement, you CAN'T give the 12th to Ward...that's not even debatable.

[original zero]

there are 12 rounds. the challenger has to win 7 of them. champion retains on a draw. what other advantage should the champion have? should the challenger have to win 8 out of 12? ridiculous. the champion's advantage is retaining on a draw. period.

[hugh grant]

Ward got gift decision he certainly didn't take it to the champ.
Many challengers in past have seemingly out pointed champion more so than ward did kovalev, yet didn't get the decision solely on the argument they didn't take it to the champ.
So ward has set precedent. Many challengers in the past who lost controversial decisions have a case for compensation of some sort.
Why is ward shown favouritism.?