You have to "take" a champion's title

[bojangles1987]

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.

They bring it up because it's a ****** stereotype that still proves true from time to time. If Manny Pacquiao, a relative unknown at the time, doesn't whip Barrera's ass, he may get robbed.

Supporting the idea of "taking" the belt from the champion is supporting robberies. Plain and simple. It's basically saying "you have to win 9-10 rounds to win the fight." No real boxing fan should support that.

[bojangles1987]

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.

Stealing a points victory is still winning. And that's all you have to do to win a fight and take a belt from a champ is win enough rounds in the eyes of enough judges.

I get why Kovalev fans are angry, and I'm not going to tell them not to be. But don't start bringing up stuff like "taking" the belt from the champ. You don't need to, and you're just supporting an awful phrase meant to justify robberies, which is exactly what you're arguing against.

[gauze]

personally, i score fights with the 10-point must system. round 11 and 12 are not worth more than any other round. whoever wins a round won it, regardless of how close it was (i don't believe in scoring even rounds unless there's a point deduction/knockdown or absolutely nothing happens).

i don't agree with the judges' score, and definitely not your rounds 1, 3, and 11 nonsense. it was a close fight and ward "took" the champion's title by winning more rounds on the judges' scorecards.

[IronDanHamza]

I dont think anyone could ever have accused Ward of haven taken it to the championn. Im sure many feel he got home town decision though.

You don't need to take it to the champion to win the fight that's the point.

[bojangles1987]

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.

This is supporting robberies. You're telling the challenger that he needs to win 9-10 rounds in order to win the fight, which is horribly unfair and shouldn't be a thing. You can't b*tch about robberies in boxing and then support nonsense like "taking" the belt from the champ.

And saying you'd be for having to knock out the champ to win his belt? That's ****ing absurd.

[soul_survivor]

Just reading this thread shows me how many guys don't have a clue about boxing

[hugh grant]

You don't need to take it to the champion to win the fight that's the point.

What? In your opinion you mean. It's in the opinion of many boxing commentators that boxers in past didn't get decision because they didn't take it to the champ. That's the point. There are challengers who did better than ward did against kovalev but didn't get decisions because they didn't take it to the champ according to commentatores
People don't think ward did enough and got hometown decision. That's another point

[IronDanHamza]

What? In your opinion you mean. It's in the opinion of many boxing commentators that boxers in past didn't get decision because they didn't take it to the champ. That's the point.
People don't think ward did enough and got hometown decision. That's another point

No not in my opinion.

According to the rules and scoring criteria.

No mention of "taking it to the champion" in either.

[juggernaut666]

No not in my opinion.

According to the rules and scoring criteria.

No mention of "taking it to the champion" in either.

The number one thing under the rules of boxing first is effective aggression...unless you believe Kovalev wasn't using effective aggression than Ward wins which I didn't see that.

[bojangles1987]

What? In your opinion you mean. It's in the opinion of many boxing commentators that boxers in past didn't get decision because they didn't take it to the champ. That's the point. There are challengers who did better than ward did against kovalev but didn't get decisions because they didn't take it to the champ according to commentatores
People don't think ward did enough and got hometown decision. That's another point

Again, boxing commentators mention it because there's a history of fighters getting screwed against the champ, or more accurately the "A-side," which the champ usually is. So when they mention "taking" the title from the champ it's because they know there's a good chance of a robbery if the challenger doesn't win so convincingly they can't possibly be robbed.

And no one besides possibly Boone (we have no idea without video) has ever done as well as Ward did against Kovalev. Also, Vegas is not Ward's hometown. Not even close.

If you support this bull**** idea of "taking" the title from the champ, than you support robberies. That makes you a **** boxing fan.