[MYTH] You got to BEAT the Champ

[Chrismart]

Yep i agree. Score the fight round by round, then total those rounds up at the end and see what you got.

A champ should be able to lose close rounds/fights.

[Vinnykin]

Exactly not fair lol! You're the problem. If a round is close it's close. You don't give it to the champ cuz he's the champ! A round can be close but you score it to the guy that did more even if the more is slightly more. If you're a good judge with a trained eye, this shouldn't be a big problem.

Don't partially quote me again like that and miss the context. The First part read.

"I don't think it's a myth at all, but mostly only comes into play where the challenger is fighting defensively and scoring punches are few and far between"

Add that on right before what you quoted and feel free to argue how an aggressive champion does not win rounds fighting a defensive fighter if there's not much in the landed punches?

I also said this:

"It's hard to argue that a champion wouldn't be given the benefit in close rounds. If there is clear punches landed then obviously not"

My comment was not to agree that champion s should be given close rounds, which you see to imply by your response?

I gave an honest opinion that aggression can win fights if a fight is close.

Please argue that and not the drivel you responded.

[Zaroku]

A lot of cats from my generation say well you got to beat the champ when a fight is close.

Meaning, you got to whup that asś to get the win. Getting the win just isn't enough, you need to do more than that.

For example, well that was a close round but the challenger landed the cleaner punches and stopped the champ in his tracks once or twice that round. Nope, not enough cuz you can't have close rounds with the champ, champ wins those cuz he's champ.

I used to regurgitate this when I was a kid --- mostly when telling people Hagler really beat Leonard and got robbed (which I now believe SRL won handily).

As I got older and wiser I started critically thinking about the concept.

Basically what these people are saying is the champ gets more points or something in a championship bout.

Nah man, the champ can lose it close. All you need to do is win the round. Champ don'tget shít if he doesn't earn it and getting a belt doesn't give you imaginary points.

You got to beat the champ is a myth.

The champ gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm of that school of thought that a challenger needs to take the belt fro the champ.

[Vlad_]

You could get the dog shit beat out of you for five rounds and edge out 7 unimpressive rounds and still win...

Exatcly this. Example if a hockey game would be scored like this. Team A wins first period 2 goals to 1, and wins third period 3 goals to 2. But team B wins second period 9 goals to 1. Team A wins the game because they won periods one and three closely, even though they got completely destroyed in the second period.

As for taking it from the champ, if a round is extremely close, it should be 10-10, but since that never happens, I think it should go to the champ, because the challenger needs to prove he is superior to the champ, otherwise what did he really do deserve the belts?

[Luilun]

Disagree. I thought Mayweather won both fights. Castillo gave up to many of the early rounds in the first fight.

99% of boxing fans disagree with you

[SplitSecond]

Tis true, it is a myth. You can simply rob the champ.

[McNulty]

99% of Floyd haters disagree with you

You're totally correct here.

[New England]

that's not the old adage, that you need to really beat up a champion to take his title. never has been that way in modern boxing

it hasn't been acceptable for judges to score even rounds for some time. it used to be common. in fact, fights used to beconsidere draws if there was no knockout, and they'd bring in scorecards from writers and award "news paper decisions," or NWS.


the lingering adage is that one should score rounds without a clear winner to the champion. and i don't see any problem with that in the context of a system that doesn't allow a judge to score a draw.

i score them as a draw, myself, but pro judges are frowned upon for scoring rounds even. it may not even be allowed, but as far as i know it is still technically within their power to score round as draws, as it has always been. perhaps they should start to score rounds as draws more often. it will keep them from having a knee jerk reaction in regard to the neccesity to score a round when they don't see a clear winner. that is a dangerous recipe for favoritism of fighters, certain styles, being impressed by the crowd, etc.

if judges can't easily pick a winner they should be allowed to score a round as a draw.