Please explain to me how more is not enough

I would like to hear the logic behind the most illogic B.S I have ever heard but yet it has always been said in boxing....... "you have to damn near kill the champion to get the win". Theoretically if J.T landed 2 punches per round and Winky landed 3. Then Winky did more BUT NOT ENOUGH TO WIN!.......... When they should be saying" J.T didn't do enough to keep his titles "..So basically in boxing the champion comes in with 2 points already on-the cards....Maybe we need to adapt this judging method in more sports.In football if the game is a no scoring game but the challengers score at the end from a safety or a field goal.....yeah they have more points "BUT they didn't do enough TO WIN"! I'm sure they'd love that in soccer and especially baseball. Even J.T knew he didn't win that fight .Lots of fighters would have faked it at the final bell and smiled and threw their hands in the air.J.T is much to much of a gentleman . He basically admitted that the judging was unfair by saying "I don't have nothing to do with how they scored the fight".He knew the other man did MORE. But in boxing-More is only More-and more sometimes isn't Enough!

A very fair point, I agree with it

I always thought of that saying as more of a philosophy than anything else. Every challenger should go in there thinking that they have to take the title, so that way we hopefully would not get these fights that are to close to call. I never thought it should apply to judging but more to phsyic the challenger up to earn a more decisive victory.

In my opinion "you have to take the title from the champ" is essential to the sport. It means that if you want tp wrap the belt around your waist and shadowbox for the family in your mama's kitchen you need to give em a reason to hand it over.

If the bout is a draw the current champ should retain the title. If you don't turn the current champ's head into a yo-yo for 8 rounds and floor him once or twice in the process than the champ retains the title. The belt has greater meaning this way.

Otherwise three or four closely matched fighters could pass the belt back and forth in a few year's time. Boxing isn't American football were a schedule is handed out and 32 teams start fresh at the end of each season. You can't fight once a week for four months, blah, blah, blah...

I always put it to people like this... "Did you slay the dragon or just hide behind a large shield until it stopped breathing fire and flew away."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatsandy

I would like to hear the logic behind the most illogic B.S I have ever heard but yet it has always been said in boxing....... "you have to damn near kill the champion to get the win". Theoretically if J.T landed 2 punches per round and Winky landed 3. Then Winky did more BUT NOT ENOUGH TO WIN!.......... When they should be saying" J.T didn't do enough to keep his titles "..So basically in boxing the champion comes in with 2 points already on-the cards....Maybe we need to adapt this judging method in more sports.In football if the game is a no scoring game but the challengers score at the end from a safety or a field goal.....yeah they have more points "BUT they didn't do enough TO WIN"! I'm sure they'd love that in soccer and especially baseball. Even J.T knew he didn't win that fight .Lots of fighters would have faked it at the final bell and smiled and threw their hands in the air.J.T is much to much of a gentleman . He basically admitted that the judging was unfair by saying "I don't have nothing to do with how they scored the fight".He knew the other man did MORE. But in boxing-More is only More-and more sometimes isn't Enough!

---

go read my post criticizing your stupid compubox numbers..............

then come back and give me my apology

IF BEATING THE CHAMP IS THE CASE THEN B-HOP WON BOTH FIGHTS. IN THEORY JT DID NOT "BEAT THE CHAMP" THE FIRST FIGHT HE SQUEAKED A DECISION AND SINCE HE DIDN'T WIN THE FIRST FIGHT HE SHOULD'T HAVE WON THE BELTS THUS MAKING THE SECOND FIGHT A LOSS TOO BECAUSE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE BELTS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mafiajoey

IF BEATING THE CHAMP IS THE CASE THEN B-HOP WON BOTH FIGHTS. IN THEORY JT DID NOT "BEAT THE CHAMP" THE FIRST FIGHT HE SQUEAKED A DECISION AND SINCE HE DIDN'T WIN THE FIRST FIGHT HE SHOULD'T HAVE WON THE BELTS THUS MAKING THE SECOND FIGHT A LOSS TOO BECAUSE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE BELTS!WHOA......that was an intense epiphany....cc

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mafiajoey

IF BEATING THE CHAMP IS THE CASE THEN B-HOP WON BOTH FIGHTS. IN THEORY JT DID NOT "BEAT THE CHAMP" THE FIRST FIGHT HE SQUEAKED A DECISION AND SINCE HE DIDN'T WIN THE FIRST FIGHT HE SHOULD'T HAVE WON THE BELTS THUS MAKING THE SECOND FIGHT A LOSS TOO BECAUSE HE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE BELTS!

---

I wholeheartedly agree. And once each err happens you can only hope that next time it will be right.

I think Taylor stripping Hopkins of the title was ridiculous. I dislike Taylor because of it. It's easier to like Taylor now that Hopkins whooped Tarver and readjusted his legacy. However, just because Taylor stole the belt from Hopkins doesn't mean it should be stolen from him.

THIS IS THE KIND OF BS THAT EMOTIONALLY SETS ME OFF ABOUT BOXING. I KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE JUST HOPING JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED SOMEDAY! B-HOP WAS ROBBED AND MAYBE IT'S ONLY RIGHT WHINKY NEEDS TO WIN MORE CONVINCINGLY TO TAKE TAYLORS BELTS BUT ALL THAT ASIDE I WOULD GIVE MY LAST DOLLAR TO SEE TAYLOR FIGHT JOE C. SHIT I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

It shouldnt matter that you need to do enough to take the championship belt from the champion....
the fact is if you won the fight, you won the fight, eve if its by the very smallest of margins, you won the fight, you deserve the belt.....

Compubox numbers and stupid sayings don't mean shit.

Taylor beat Hopkins both times because he won more rounds than Hop in each fight. It's not rocket science. Hop started too late in both fights to make an impact and deservedly lost both fights, although they were close.

The Winky Taylor fight was closer than either Hopkins fight with several rounds which could have gone either way.

The judges gave 6 round each to both fighters thus a draw.

Most people on here would admit that several rounds were very close and could have gone either way. So it seems entirely acceptable that they all went the way that they did, and that the end result was a draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TyBuff

I always thought of that saying as more of a philosophy than anything else. Every challenger should go in there thinking that they have to take the title, so that way we hopefully would not get these fights that are to close to call. I never thought it should apply to judging but more to phsyic the challenger up to earn a more decisive victory.

---

I believe the same thing but it is easier said then done ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bilbo

Compubox numbers and stupid sayings don't mean S***.

Taylor beat Hopkins both times because he won more rounds than Hop in each fight. It's not rocket science. Hop started too late in both fights to make an impact and deservedly lost both fights, although they were close.

The Winky Taylor fight was closer than either Hopkins fight with several rounds which could have gone either way.

The judges gave 6 round each to both fighters thus a draw.

Most people on here would admit that several rounds were very close and could have gone either way. So it seems entirely acceptable that they all went the way that they did, and that the end result was a draw.

---

U wont here me arguing that decison...I agree with u... The right decision was made... If Winky wanted to win and dethrone Taylor he should have shown the judges that in the 12th...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

A very fair point, I agree with it

---

Exactly...Winky was robbed....