I Don't Get It

I think the having to win a fight decisively to become the champ only really matters if the Champ is

a) at home
b) has a reasonable following
c) has a high-profile promoter in the region the fight is being judged.

otherwise there's a good chance they'll be happy to stiff the 'champ'.

I've seen a lot of people espouse this frankly ridiculous theory over the past week, ironically the same people who would almost certainly not have applied it the night Ricky Hatton fought Luis Collazo (which I had Hatton edging 114-113 thanks to the KD, but hey I'm not giving the Champ all the close rounds for being the champ).

Another example of the Champ not getting the breaks in this way, Oscar De La Hoya vs Pernell Whitaker. See the 3 points above & then find me an example that breaks that.

De La Hoya- Whitaker is the fight no one ever cares to argue against the decision. That was BS with the most ridiculous scores imaginable, imo Whitaker won that fight by at least 2 rounds. I have never seen a DLH scorecard that sits well with me for that fight.

For me it basically means that if your in the champs backyard & your doing very little, it'll be very hard to take the championship.

In regards to Dirrell/ Froch there were rounds where neither guy did anything. In that situation it can sometimes go to the known commodity.

I'm not saying its right, but a hometown crowd can sway those close rounds towards the champ & make it very difficult for the challenger to take the title.

Like in other sports sometime the ref seems biased or its a home or country game & calls go against the other team

It just means you need to bring your A-game to walk away with the win, leave no doubts!

I read a good explaination of this a while back, I will try and find it. Basically the point I was trying to make to Killer, if the away fighter doesnt do enough to clearly win a round then it stands to reason that the champion won it.

Doesnt make it right, but its the way it is.