What ever happened to...?

[chirorickyp]

It went from "you have to beat the champ" to "you have to KO the A side, cause you won't get a decision in Vegas."

YOU NAILED IT.

just add " with a Golden Boy fighter"

You have to beat the champ to take his title not make it a competitive fight.

GGG should leave like Hagler did

[Tom Cruise]

It’s a bull**** saying that isn’t really true. The reality is you have to beat the Aside, the money maker, not you have to beat the champ. It just happens most the time the champ is the money maker, especially back in the day.

[Chrismart]

I've never really been a fan of that saying. It shouldn't be that way.
Just win the rounds, add them up at the end and see who comes out on top.

[KillaMane26]

Cash cow> any rule

[!! Shawn]

Its never been a rule, official or unofficial. It was a saying more than anything I'd suggest.

And I think generally the champ wins more fights then the challengers so its a saying that looks like it could be a rule based on that reality. But I mean the champ is usually going to be the more proven better guy just based on the fact he's the guy holding the title. So that being the case he's gonna win more of the fights vs the challengers naturally.

It does some have basis in history. There use to not be decisions. If nobody got knocked out, the champ kept his title, and it was literally called a no decision.

This was the era of newspaper decisions, where sports writers were basically the only ones voicing opinions as to who won or lost the fight if there was no knockout.

Even today, in the event of a draw the champ keeps his title.

[b00g13man]

It's a dumb statement. You either score the fight, or you don't.

[Rip Chudd]

I've never really been a fan of that saying. It shouldn't be that way.
Just win the rounds, add them up at the end and see who comes out on top.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Saying is dumb as heck. Fights are scored round by round, add them up at the end and you have a winner