[MYTH] You got to BEAT the Champ

[BrometheusBob.]

It's a myth that persists because each round is scored by a judge who is making a subjective decision. And most close decisions have people who thought it should have gone the other way.

In other sports where points are clearly counted, there is much less room to debate as to whether winning a game 10-9 is legit.

[Vinnykin]

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.

In a case like that, like Parker/Fury was scored 118-110 on 2 scorecards, then you have to say every close round went to the champion, which is fair.

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.

[Zaryu]

A win is a win. The challenger most definitely needs to beat the champ, but that can be done by outboxing the champ even if the challenger never hurts the champion and the champion finishes stronger.

[Citizen Koba]

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.

I used to think it meant the same - then I figured out that it probably means something far simpler and more literal... merely that a draw won't cut it. To get the belts you need to actually beat the champ. In the event of a draw the champ keeps his belts. My guess is that whoever coined the phrase meant just that, and then, because people are people, folk just interpreted it however they chose. That's my theory anyway and I ain't found any evidence that I'm wrong yet.

The idea that somehow the champ gets extra credit just for being champ is patently absurd when you think about it... although boxing being boxing I ain't surprised some folk have run with the idea.

[boliodogs]

You are damn right it's a myth and a ****** myth at that. The champion and his challenger are fighting for his title. When the bell rings for round one there is no champion only two boxers fighting for that championship. The fight is scored exactly the same way as any other fight. Whoever wins the round gets that round even if they just barely won it. The champ does not get the close rounds like Pascal tried to say. If the challenger just edges the champ by a single point he is the new champ. He doesn't have to be the aggressor and win by a large margin. He only has to win by a single point. There is absolutely nothing in boxing rules about the challenger having to take the title away from the champ by beating him convincingly. This was something boxing fans made up and they are wrong. ALL the challenger has to do to be the new champ is to win even by a single point and no favoritism is supposed to be shown toward the champion in scoring close rounds. The only advantage the champion has is if the fight is a draw he keeps his title.

[McNulty]

exactly, a judge is not gonna give you points for being a champ thats just ridiculous

But they do though and the guy below me admits it.

In a case like that, like Parker/Fury was scored 118-110 on 2 scorecards, then you have to say every close round went to the champion, which is fair.

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.

I used to think it meant the same - then I figured out that it probably means something far simpler and more literal... merely that a draw won't cut it. To get the belts you need to actually beat the champ. In the event of a draw the champ keeps his belts. My guess is that whoever coined the phrase meant just that, and then, because people are people, folk just interpreted it however they chose. That's my theory anyway and I ain't found any evidence that I'm wrong yet.

The idea that somehow the champ gets extra credit just for being champ is patently absurd when you think about it... although boxing being boxing I ain't surprised some folk have run with the idea.

There is plenty of evidence out there. Hagler said he was never hurt, was never down, etc --- implying Leonard needed to do that to win. Hagler is referring to losing the fight as if the entire fight was one round. I think (don't quote me cuz I haven't seen the fight since it happened) Holmes said that about losing to Spinks too.

I've seen 7,000+ Boxing matches and I've heard plenty of fighters and pundits say the same thing. Champ never got hurt, champ never got dropped, you need to TAKE the title from the champ. Implying you have to RIP it from their hands when all you have to do is win. Even if its by a hair.

[Luilun]

Mayweather lost 8 rounds to Castillo who was the Champ what happened there ?

[McNulty]

Mayweather lost 8 rounds to Castillo who was the Champ what happened there ?

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

[ruedboy]

No doubt, the judges start out with a totally unbiased view. No favoritism is shown and they score each round based on four factors, so an unknown fighter has an equal chance as the home fighter with a great rep. Every fan knows that.

[Citizen Koba]

But they do though and the guy below me admits it.



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.



There is plenty of evidence out there. Hagler said he was never hurt, was never down, etc --- implying Leonard needed to do that to win. Hagler is referring to losing the fight as if the entire fight was one round. I think (don't quote me cuz I haven't seen the fight since it happened) Holmes said that about losing to Spinks too.

I've seen 7,000+ Boxing matches and I've heard plenty of fighters and pundits say the same thing. Champ never got hurt, champ never got dropped, you need to TAKE the title from the champ. Implying you have to RIP it from their hands when all you have to do is win. Even if its by a hair.

Yeah - plenty of guys take that **** as gospel... what I'm saying is that I reckon it's a myth that was started by someone misunderstanding the simple quote that you need to beat the champ to become the champ (ie the champion retains in the event of a draw). Just cos lots of people believe it, it doesn't mean it didn't all just start as a ****** mistake way back when. Problem is that this kind of meme can take on a life of it's own as evidenced by the many fighters and pundits that seem to believe it.. 'course, the real problems start if the judges believe that crap too.