Quote Originally Posted by OumaFan View Post
This whole concept of "if you want to beat the champion you've got to take it from him", you hear this in a variety of ways and none of them make sense.

Aren't fights scored on a ten point must system round by round? If you think the challenger won 7 rounds to 5 is that not enough to win the championship?

If you're a proponent of this theory do you give the champion a built in lead before each round? Because otherwise it makes no sense.

You have to score a fight round by round so there must be some kind of abstract "champions advantage", like an imaginary punch or two a round is credited to the champion. Is this what Lampley has been doing for years in ODLH fights? Big right hand.

Could somebody explain this to me. It makes no sense. Shouldn't the guy who won more rounds be the guy declared the winner?

BTW this is not Froch-Dirrell related. That was just one bought off ref and I guess one that didn't like Dirrell's style.
i agree that it's bull, i mean if it's championship fight they make it 12 rounds, giving each fighter more time to prove who's the best out of the two, if the challenger wins seven straight, then loses every other round but isn't knocked down, he still deserves to win the title, he just didn't do it impressively