"You Have to dominate the champion" - one of the dumbest sayings in boxing?

[Beanflicker]

Whenever talking about a controversial decision, past or present, this nugget of shit always gets brought up in some form or another.

"You need to REALLY beat a champion to win his belt".

Says who? Show me in the boxing rulebook where it says "The Champion/Popular fighter Shall Inherit All Ye Close Rounds".

It's REDICULOUS. Boxing is very cut and dry: you win a bout by knocking your opponent out or winning more rounds than him.

Judges are responsible for interpreting who won a round, and that's it. If they are doing anything else, like taking into account a championship/popularity/money/market value/ect, then by it's very definition, THEY ARE CORRUPT.

We all agree that corruption in boxing is a huge, undesirable problem. But when you use this rediculous old cliche to justify a robbery, you are doing nothing but helping to perpetuate the bullshit that has all but destroying boxing over the years.

Cut it out. The guy who fought better deserves the win.

JMM > Pacquaio

[Mo Frazier]

Says who? Show me in the boxing rulebook where it says "The Champion/Popular fighter Shall Inherit All Ye Close Rounds".

Judges are responsible for interpreting who won a round, and that's it. If they are doing anything else, like taking into account a championship/popularity/money/market value/ect, then by it's very definition, THEY ARE CORRUPT.

We all agree that corruption in boxing is a huge, undesirable problem. But when you use this rediculous old cliche to justify a robbery, you are doing nothing but helping to perpetuate the bullshit that has all but destroying boxing over the years.

Good points, completely agreed with the above

However, because of the JMM reference, I'm sure most of the posts will be groans about beating a dead horse or something along those lines.

[Prosinecki]

Amen.

[:::PSL:::]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

[FinitoElDinamita]

I was gonna make a thread about this as well... lol

Definitely... it's a dumb notion that the challenger " has to take the belt "... it's just some BS cliche that's more fitting for a movie.

Challenger dont have to dominate anything. They can either score a KO or win rounds, simple as that..

[mnmc10]

well you have to convince EVERYONE you are better than the champ. in my eyes jmm won but to the judges eyes he didnt.

[FinitoElDinamita]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

In your feeble eyes, Marquez didnt try? lol Stop exposing yourself further..

I know you are simple minded but one doesnt have to move forward all the time to indicate that they are trying.

Marquez is a counter puncher and he implemented his style better than Pacman did..

[ElTerribleMorales]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

In your feeble eyes, Marquez didnt try? lol Stop exposing yourself further..

I know you are simple minded but one doesnt have to move forward all the time to indicate that they are trying.

Marquez is a counter puncher and he implemented his style better than Pacman did..

don't even bother bro, words falling on deaf ears

[:::PSL:::]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

In your feeble eyes, Marquez didnt try? lol Stop exposing yourself further..

I know you are simple minded but one doesnt have to move forward all the time to indicate that they are trying.

Marquez is a counter puncher and he implemented his style better than Pacman did..

Nope. I disagree.

The challenger must convincingly defeat the champ, hanging with Pac for 12 rounds and trading shots is not enough. You don’t win a fight just for hanging in there or for surviving. Manny threw over 100 more punches and connected with more. Add that to the fact that Marquez was backing up ALL FUCKING ROUNDS and it’s easy to determine who the aggressor was. So No, IMO Marquez didn't try.

Close fight but a clear victory for Pac.

[ElTerribleMorales]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

In your feeble eyes, Marquez didnt try? lol Stop exposing yourself further..

I know you are simple minded but one doesnt have to move forward all the time to indicate that they are trying.

Marquez is a counter puncher and he implemented his style better than Pacman did..

Nope. I disagree.

The challenger must convincingly defeat the champ, hanging with Pac for 12 rounds and trading shots is not enough. You don’t win a fight just for hanging in there or for surviving. Manny threw over 100 more punches and connected with more. Add that to the fact that Marquez was backing up ALL FUCKING ROUNDS and it’s easy to determine who the aggressor was. So No, IMO Marquez didn't try.

Close fight but a clear victory for Pac.

oh lord...Marquez is a FUCKING COUNTER PUNCHER, meaning he COUNTERS after his opponent throws ineffective shots land his own effective punches, for example the constant overhand rights raining in on the left side of Pacquiao's face, there is no way you're going to COUNTER if you're the one coming forward, and even using the punchstats as "evidence" who had the higher connect %? oh right Marquez, further proof that he picked his punches to land cleaner sharper punches throughout the night, if the guy in the red corner hadn't been Manny Fucking Pacquiao there wouldn't be so much "you have to take the title from the champion" bullshit

[:::PSL:::]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

In your feeble eyes, Marquez didnt try? lol Stop exposing yourself further..

I know you are simple minded but one doesnt have to move forward all the time to indicate that they are trying.

Marquez is a counter puncher and he implemented his style better than Pacman did..

Nope. I disagree.

The challenger must convincingly defeat the champ, hanging with Pac for 12 rounds and trading shots is not enough. You don’t win a fight just for hanging in there or for surviving. Manny threw over 100 more punches and connected with more. Add that to the fact that Marquez was backing up ALL FUCKING ROUNDS and it’s easy to determine who the aggressor was. So No, IMO Marquez didn't try.

Close fight but a clear victory for Pac.

oh lord...Marquez is a FUCKING COUNTER PUNCHER, meaning he COUNTERS after his opponent throws ineffective shots land his own effective punches, for example the constant overhand rights raining in on the left side of Pacquiao's face, there is no way you're going to COUNTER if you're the one coming forward, and even using the punchstats as "evidence" who had the higher connect %? oh right Marquez, further proof that he picked his punches to land cleaner sharper punches throughout the night, if the guy in the red corner hadn't been Manny Fucking Pacquiao there wouldn't be so much "you have to take the title from the champion" bullshit

Maybe Marquez should mixed it up a bit. Be the aggressor and the counterpuncher.

'Ever heard of Nonito Donaire?

[Beanflicker]

and it’s easy to determine who the aggressor was.

Here is another notion I hate: scoring rounds to the "aggressor". Being an aggressor doesn't mean anything, it's being an "effective aggressor" that wins fights.

Manny is usually an effective aggressor because he pushes the pace and LANDS PUNCHES. Hitting your opponent = effective.

Tex Cobb was the "aggressor" against Larry Holmes. Watch that fight and tell me who you think won.

When you are pushing the pace, but getting raked with counter punches, what good does that do you?

[ElTerribleMorales]

You don't have to dominate the champion,... BUT AT LEAST TRY.

In your feeble eyes, Marquez didnt try? lol Stop exposing yourself further..

I know you are simple minded but one doesnt have to move forward all the time to indicate that they are trying.

Marquez is a counter puncher and he implemented his style better than Pacman did..

Nope. I disagree.

The challenger must convincingly defeat the champ, hanging with Pac for 12 rounds and trading shots is not enough. You don’t win a fight just for hanging in there or for surviving. Manny threw over 100 more punches and connected with more. Add that to the fact that Marquez was backing up ALL FUCKING ROUNDS and it’s easy to determine who the aggressor was. So No, IMO Marquez didn't try.

Close fight but a clear victory for Pac.

oh lord...Marquez is a FUCKING COUNTER PUNCHER, meaning he COUNTERS after his opponent throws ineffective shots land his own effective punches, for example the constant overhand rights raining in on the left side of Pacquiao's face, there is no way you're going to COUNTER if you're the one coming forward, and even using the punchstats as "evidence" who had the higher connect %? oh right Marquez, further proof that he picked his punches to land cleaner sharper punches throughout the night, if the guy in the red corner hadn't been Manny Fucking Pacquiao there wouldn't be so much "you have to take the title from the champion" bullshit

Maybe Marquez should mixed it up a bit. Be the aggressor and the counterpuncher.

'Ever heard of Nonito Donaire?

yea the guy nowhere near Marquez' level, and it's easy to mix it up the way Donaire does when he beats up on a guy who's not fighting back, unless you're really comparing fighting Manny Pacquiao to fighting Narvaez

[blegit]

This isn't even up for debate. There is nothing in the scoring rules to this effect. Anyone who uses this argument is simply making up things. And those same people would have to give JMM the first fight over Pac then because that fight ended in a draw and JMM was the champion.

[Mar]

Shit with the rip off floyd and roy jones got in the olympics you have to dominate in the amatures too