"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]

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.

[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.