You have to "take" a champion's title

[Weltschmerz]

"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.

I think what's mainly referred to is ring generalship and pressing the action effectively, of which Ward did neither. Fighting in survival mode normally doesn't win you world titles. Ward didn't win any fight, he stole a BS points victory.

[bojangles1987]

This is a sensational, spot on, to the bank post.

The notion of "taking the title from the Champ" is just a lazy effort of justification after-the-fact.

In a fight for a title, the title is up for grabs. The "Champ" isn't wearing the title while he's fighting.

Win enough rounds, win the fight. Simple. The only thing "taking the title from the Champ" should mean, is hitting him over the back of the head with a steel chair, and running off with the belt.

Hardcore style.

[bojangles1987]

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 does the champ need such the benefit of the doubt? Is he not good enough to win the fight on his own, so he needs the judges to protect him if the challenger makes a round close?

Because that's really dumb and unfair. And again, only exists as a way to justify robberies. The whole reason the phrase "take the belt from the champ" exists is because a challenger would go into the champion's backyard, win, but not get the decision. So the idea that you have to "take" the belt by winning so clearly you can't possibly be robbed came about.

So why exactly are you in favor of such bull****?

[bojangles1987]

Well said. You're citing boxing etiquette as it used to be. Today there is no such thing unfortunately. I scored the fight just as you did. Short of getting knocked out Dre was a shoe in for the win. Unbiased fans know who was the better man that night. It's the state of boxing today. Every so often the judges don't seem to be watching the same fight as everyone else and there's a reason for that. This time Ward was to get the nod. The next time I suspect Kovalev will bring the house down and not leave it up to the judges.

"Taking" a champ's belt was never boxing etiquette. It is a relic of boxing's worst corruption. Calling it etiquette is like calling a "tribute" to a mob boss etiquette.

[hugh grant]

Why does the champ need such the benefit of the doubt? Is he not good enough to win the fight on his own, so he needs the judges to protect him if the challenger makes a round close?

Because that's really dumb and unfair. And again, only exists as a way to justify robberies. The whole reason the phrase "take the belt from the champ" exists is because a challenger would go into the champion's backyard, win, but not get the decision. So the idea that you have to "take" the belt by winning so clearly you can't possibly be robbed came about.

So why exactly are you in favor of such bull****?

It was kov was fighting outside backyard so that's why ward won in most eyes. Kov is the one who people are crediting. Ward fought like someone who hoped hometown judges would favour him.
Do you think it's fair when people fighting outside their country have to do more than hometown fighters to get decision??

[Graz]

Giving Ward only 3 rounds? You're out of your damn mind.

My card was.

1.Kovalev
2.Kovalev
3.Kovalev
4.Ward
5.Ward
6.Kovalev
7.Ward
8.Ward
9.Ward
10.Kovalev
11.Ward
12.Ward

7,8,9,11,12 were clear Ward rounds.

1,2,6,10 Clear Kovalev rounds.

3,4,5 Close rounds.

You had Ward winning 7 rounds! Really? I could say the same thing about you my friend. You should ask about judging fights in Vegas. Not even close. Sorry.

[IronDanHamza]

Point me to the rule and scoring criteria that you have to "take the belt from the champion" and break down what it actually even means (with sources) and I will agree with you.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

The simple fact that one can even say "well to me it means this..." just tells to you right there that it's a load of bollocks.


Ok, to ME, "taking the belt from the champion" means taking the action away from the fight, it means taking the pace down, it means taking a knockdown and getting back up, it means taking a jab, getting rocked by it but staying on your feet, it means taking yourself to the barber shop and getting a Mohawk style haircut.

Therefore by MY definition of "taking the belt from the champion" Andre Ward won a shutout so I guess that clears up any robbery talks from this point on.

[hugh grant]

Point me to the rule and scoring criteria that you have to "take the belt from the champion" and break down what it actually even means (with sources) and I will agree with you.

That's a silly question to pose. That's like asking why do hometown fighters get favourable decisions.?

Since growing up watching boxing on TVs its boxers doing commentary on boxing matches where I've heard the term used most often.
Not on forums. Forums didn't exist 30 years ago.

[Tom Cruise]

I dont think this was a saying meant to be taken literally. Its more a comment on the fact that the champ is normally the a-side in the promotion and may get the benefit of the doubt from judges or referees. So as the challenger you need to make sure you win clearly to make sure you get around that fact.

It doesnt mean you should score fights with that in mind. Just score the fight as you see it