You have to "take" a champion's title

[mathed]

He did, with the help of a gang of 3 bribed judges and 1 blind ref.

[.!WAR MIKEY!.]

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

lmfao Ill never bet on boxing, well I wont lie I do bet but thats when I have like 5 dollars btc left over from something and I bet it on a fight like the kovalev ward fight I bet 2 dollars btc that it will end in a draw (was the only bet worth while) I would have made 60 bucks if it would have ended in a draw.

But betting real cash naw, I rather keep my money.

[mathed]

"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.

That's why commentators on all networks bring it up in championship fights? Come on, same stuff was used to justify Floyd wins. Now the goal posts move outside of the stadium for Floyd 2.0, LOL.

[IronDanHamza]

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.

It is literally nothing alike to asking that question.

[IronDanHamza]

That's why commentators on all networks bring it up in championship fights? Come on, same stuff was used to justify Floyd wins. Now the goal posts move outside of the stadium for Floyd 2.0, LOL.

Because it's old boxing folk tale. Meant nothing then and means nothing now.

I've literally never heard it said in Floyd's fights. Floyd only had two fights that were close and neither of which was he the reigning champion so what exactly are you talking about there?

[Canelo and GGG]

It is literally nothing alike to asking that question.

In history of boxing Champions got close decision more often then not,thats why ppl think its a rule when its not.

[Vadrigar.]

I remember this being the reason given for Ali winning many fights that may have been seen as a loss or draw for him. If it wasn't Ali, but just another fighter, the win may have gone to the opponent.

Well he actually did win those fights including the third against Norton.

[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.

It is literally nothing alike to asking that question.

Take it from champion is a term to show you really want the champs belt. Not trying to survive rounds. You've got to prove something to judges. He did well to survive 2nd round though. Give them a reason to give you decision. None of which ward did.
Take it to the champ is just a term that's used. Just like hometown decisions are. It's pat of boxing. Not saying it's fair or right.
But he got favourable hometown decision so why are you worried for?

[Tom Cruise]

In history of boxing Champions got close decision more often then not,thats why ppl think its a rule when its not.

Exactly. Its just meant to represent the inherent bias towards 'the a side' in a boxing promotion, which is often the champion.

Its not a part of the rules, its not something we should think about when scoring a fight. Its just the reality of a subjectively scored sport.

[Graz]

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

Finally a voice of reason. Thank you.