Why don't people like the phrase, "Take it from the champ"?

[VG_Addict]

I read a thread about how "take it from the champ" is BS. I don't get it.

If you're fighting the champ, especially on his home turf, the champ is usually going to get the decision win. If you don't knock out the champ or at least clearly win, you have no one to blame but yourself if the champ gets the nod.

[JohnCastellanos]

There’s just too many paper champions bro. In Canelo and Golovkins case who was the real champ is a question everyone should be asking themselves? Up to that point Golovkin in his career had picked up all but one of the belts on vacancy’s and he had only defeated 1 champion for a belt in his career and not to mention Canelo had actually beat the actual lineal and WBC champion

[_Maxi]

I read a thread about how "take it from the champ" is BS. I don't get it.

If you're fighting the champ, especially on his home turf, the champ is usually going to get the decision win. If you don't knock out the champ or at least clearly win, you have no one to blame but yourself if the champ gets the nod.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

The champion already has a nod. In case of draw, he remains champion.

When the champion fights someone else, every round should be scored fairly.

Whoever wins more rounds wins the fight. You don't need to KO anyone.

I repeat, in case of draw, the champion remains the champion.

[VG_Addict]

I can't believe I have to explain this.

The champion already has a nod. In case of draw, he remains champion.

When the champion fights someone else, every round should be scored fairly.

Whoever wins more rounds wins the fight. You don't need to KO anyone.

I repeat, in case of draw, the champion remains the champion.

You don't need to KO anyone? What are you talking about? If you're way behind on the scorecards, you absolutely need to KO someone.

And the KO is what attracts fans. Nobody wants to see someone win by decision all the time.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

If you win 7 rounds and the other guy wins 5. You should win the fight regarded who the champ is or where the fight is.

It’s like saying if a game between the Celtics and the Lakers finishes level, don’t go to OT, just award it to the Celtics cause it’s at the TD Garden and they have the most championships.

It’s complete BS...

[Zaroku]

I read a thread about how "take it from the champ" is BS. I don't get it.

If you're fighting the champ, especially on his home turf, the champ is usually going to get the decision win. If you don't knock out the champ or at least clearly win, you have no one to blame but yourself if the champ gets the nod.

Fear of change??? Maybe??

[TonyGe]

I read a thread about how "take it from the champ" is BS. I don't get it.

If you're fighting the champ, especially on his home turf, the champ is usually going to get the decision win. If you don't knock out the champ or at least clearly win, you have no one to blame but yourself if the champ gets the nod.

It always doesn't work like that. If the challenger is popular and well connected the Champion could end up on the wrong side of the decision.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/trajedy1.html

He barely hung on to his title in a fight he clearly won.

[Mammoth]

Because the fighter who wins, should win.

[Eff Pandas]

Cuz it's a bs phrase. You don't need to "take it" you just need to win by at least 6-5-1 or better on two or more scorecards to deserve the W. "Take it" appears to embrace & appreciate bad decisions if they lean towards the titleholder.

[Zaryu]

Because it implies you have to win with a certain style or by a specific amount in which winning by one round may not be enough. It's already been explained here, the champion stays as champion if the fight is a draw, and that's the only time the phrase would be appropriate to use in my opinion.