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

[sunny31]

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 ditto all the others here, a win is a win...period. it's the same in every sport. Scoring is subjective, but the scoring criteria should be applied the same to both fighters - regardless of who has what.

As someone already mentioned, it's a saying which lingers from previous generations where corruption was rampant.

[sunny31]

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.

You've used his comments and moved the goal posts. It was a direct retort to your argument about "taking it from the champ" not about KO's in boxing or being behind on the cards.

Wisen up my man

[Ray*]

I don’t get why anyone has a problem with it too. Some posters think it meant you have to stop the champion, NOPE. But you have to show that you want it more than the champ, especially if the fight is happening in the champions hometown/country. If you do the bare minimum and they score it a draw then you would kick yourself, the champ walks away with his belt, you might never get another chance. So the phrase taking it from the champ is basically just saying try and do more than the champ.

[VatoMulatto]

Who came up with that phrase in the first place? It's just a phrase that doesn't/shouldn't mean a damn thing and not part of the rules in boxing.

[4truth]

People don't like it because it's often used as a lame excuse for a bad decision, where the champ wrongly prevailed.

[bojangles1987]

Because it's a corrupt idea that you have to win a fight by a certain amount in order to get a win over a champion. It shouldn't exist. If you win, you win, and it shouldn't matter if you won a certain way that people want you to just because the other guy had a belt.

A fighter shouldn't have to do anything special to beat a champion compared to anyone else he fights.

[Roadblock]

Its grounded in the idea that you must beat the Champion clearly, its a figure of speech that doesnt hold water in the reality of scoring.

[_Rexy_]

The IBF used to (they may still) have a rule where in the case that the judge feels the round is a draw, they must give it to the champ.

[KillaMane26]

Cuz they fav. Fighter got a gift now they on damage control