Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,493
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1290
    Cool Clicks

    Default What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    I heard this said since I started following boxing and I still hear it to this day in person, on forums, social media, Youtube comments, ect.

    For those that subscribe to this theory, what does it mean to you?

    Should a challenger have to stop a champion to get his title?

    Should a challenger have to completely dominate a champion to get his title?

    Does it mean that close rounds automatically go to the champ?

    If a challenger wants to win a round, by how big of a margin should he win the round?

    I'd also like to know the origin of this if anyone knows.

    Has this ever been introduced or acknowledged by any sanctioning body?

    How did this saying come about and why is it still perpetuated?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Antelope Valley, California
    Posts
    5,048
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    712
    Cool Clicks

    Default

    The first time I heard it was from George Foreman.
    What I have always believed it to mean is that that you came for the belt, you didn't come to negotiate, you didn't come for a decision, you came to prove to everyone watching or listening that you want it more, deserve it more, did more, and the only way you are leaving is with the belt period. You are not going leave a spread of doubt in anyone's mind that that belt belongs to you.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    5,667
    Mentioned
    120 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    748
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
    I heard this said since I started following boxing and I still hear it to this day in person, on forums, social media, Youtube comments, ect.

    For those that subscribe to this theory, what does it mean to you?

    Should a challenger have to stop a champion to get his title?

    Should a challenger have to completely dominate a champion to get his title?

    Does it mean that close rounds automatically go to the champ?

    If a challenger wants to win a round, by how big of a margin should he win the round?

    I'd also like to know the origin of this if anyone knows.

    Has this ever been introduced or acknowledged by any sanctioning body?

    How did this saying come about and why is it still perpetuated?
    Means you have to beat the living daylights out of him for at least 2/3rds of the fight, including the final round. Score a knock-down at least. You also have to buy the judges to ensure "fair" scoring.
    Bigger man George, bigger punch!

    Subscribe: Free online Classifieds and Business directory!
    Hidden Content

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,493
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1290
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by beenKOed View Post
    The first time I heard it was from George Foreman.
    What I have always believed it to mean is that that you came for the belt, you didn't come to negotiate, you didn't come for a decision, you came to prove to everyone watching or listening that you want it more, deserve it more, did more, and the only way you are leaving is with the belt period. You are not going leave a spread of doubt in anyone's mind that that belt belongs to you.
    So how does it work in practice?

    Assuming there isn't a knock out or stoppage, a fight is scored by who wins the most amount of rounds. Should judges score rounds to the champ if the challenger doesn't completely dominate them?

    Or hypothetically, lets say we have a back and forth fight. The challenger wins 6 rounds and the champion wins 6 rounds, and when I say win I mean CLEAR winner, no room for interpretation. But the champ is deducted a point in one round for a foul. So the challenger, on the cards, wins the fight by the slimmest of margins: one point. Does the challenger deserve the belt? Or do the judges go back and retroactively give the champ one of the rounds he lost to give him the win?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    On the levee
    Posts
    45,555
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    5034
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    I believe it originates to when we gave merit and validity to a championship title belt, more so when there were not 101 divisions and 3-6 guys claiming one. The thinking being that the Man to beat was clearly defined and respected. An odd term in boxing I know. A good amount of the time today you don't have to necessarily beat up a champ so much as wait them out to surrender it on the scale because they know they can be handed a top ranking one division up or be stripped for political bs.

    Ideally and the way I see it a champ comes in as a Jon dough as far as scoring and assessing a winner. A champ can have his ears boxed off just like anyone else and it doesn't matter if you can pronounce the other guys name or not.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Antelope Valley, California
    Posts
    5,048
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    712
    Cool Clicks

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by beenKOed View Post
    The first time I heard it was from George Foreman.
    What I have always believed it to mean is that that you came for the belt, you didn't come to negotiate, you didn't come for a decision, you came to prove to everyone watching or listening that you want it more, deserve it more, did more, and the only way you are leaving is with the belt period. You are not going leave a spread of doubt in anyone's mind that that belt belongs to you.
    So how does it work in practice?

    Assuming there isn't a knock out or stoppage, a fight is scored by who wins the most amount of rounds. Should judges score rounds to the champ if the challenger doesn't completely dominate them?

    Or hypothetically, lets say we have a back and forth fight. The challenger wins 6 rounds and the champion wins 6 rounds, and when I say win I mean CLEAR winner, no room for interpretation. But the champ is deducted a point in one round for a foul. So the challenger, on the cards, wins the fight by the slimmest of margins: one point. Does the challenger deserve the belt? Or do the judges go back and retroactively give the champ one of the rounds he lost to give him the win?
    Sir, we are a talking about giving everything you have, about holding nothing back. About making a bargain with yourself to do, for the next 12 Rds, everything legal you know how to do to win.
    Having that attitude does not guarantee a victory or change the rules of boxing. He might still win or lose by a slim margin, but he wants every person who saw the fight to know he gave the Champion all he had.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,805
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1339
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Usually means that in a close fight, the Champ retains his crown. No real logic to it. Max Kellerman is a strong advocate of it.


    The notion has been around since I have followed boxing and that tracks to 1945.

    “If you want loyalty, buy a dog.” Ricky Hatton





  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,493
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1290
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by holmcall View Post
    Usually means that in a close fight, the Champ retains his crown. No real logic to it. Max Kellerman is a strong advocate of it.


    The notion has been around since I have followed boxing and that tracks to 1945.
    So that means giving the closer rounds automatically to the champ?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,805
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1339
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beanflicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by holmcall View Post
    Usually means that in a close fight, the Champ retains his crown. No real logic to it. Max Kellerman is a strong advocate of it.


    The notion has been around since I have followed boxing and that tracks to 1945.
    So that means giving the closer rounds automatically to the champ?



    Kinda of, yes. If the judges can redo their cards at the end, they can do it more easily. This might help some: http://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1d0xrj/traditionally_in_boxing_did_you_have_to_beat_the/
    Last edited by holmcall; 07-18-2014 at 10:38 PM.

    “If you want loyalty, buy a dog.” Ricky Hatton





  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,805
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1339
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Arghh Erragh, how the f--k do you make a link work?

    “If you want loyalty, buy a dog.” Ricky Hatton





  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,748
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1267
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    Yeah it's a weird one to hear today. When you had more undisputed champions fighting a lot more often, it may have held some clout, I dunno. If you have a challenger who is fairly unknown or untested, against a guy who has really established himself, then maybe the latter will get some benefit of the doubt, or score points for "ring generalship" in the late rounds of a close fight just having been there before, that kind of thing.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    614
    Cool Clicks

    Default

    Everyone today is some sort of champion though. FFS Shumenov held a title.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,795
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    The 1st time the phrase was 'coined'.

    Joe Louis vs. Jersey Joe Walcott 'I'

    Boxing Pundits,

    How can you give the Decision to Jersey Joe, when he fought going backwards for most of
    the bout. You have to really beat the Champion to take his title.

    There is no way a Challenger can win a 'close' Decision over the Champion. The Champion gets
    the benefit of the doubt in close Rounds.
    Last edited by Bill Paxtom; 07-19-2014 at 04:16 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NW Spain
    Posts
    243
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    914
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    If there isn't a KO stoppage, you have to outbox the champ convincingly enough to make the eventual robbery look as outrageous as possible.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ex'way to your Skull
    Posts
    25,024
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

    to me bro, it means the champ is the chamo and to win the title you have to win it convincingly, its not like 2 guys who neither is the champ , and one shaves the other one by 1 point, etc. No champion is gonna get shaved by 1 point, its gotta be 3 points to shave a champ. Or a KO of course

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-01-2019, 02:07 PM
  2. "fast" eddie chambers future cruiserweight champ
    By jrotonda in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-04-2013, 11:07 AM
  3. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-06-2011, 07:10 PM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-07-2011, 03:23 PM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-05-2006, 11:06 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Saddo Boxing - Boxing