I disagree. A fight is 12 rounds scored on a round by round basis. It is not the challenger/underdogs duty to go out, take crazy risks, and either score the KO or be KO'ed. It is boxing and should be about those 12 rounds and that alone. Who won the most rounds based on effective aggression, ring generalship, and clean punching. We make excuses for corruption in so many ways and the result is an amoral age. Why can we not just erase BS politics and score a fight based on 12 rounds and cut out nonsense like 'He's the underdog so he should land at least 30% more punches to win'. What happened to just having a fight and for it to be scored as fairly as can be? It was a boring fight, but there is no judging criteria to say 'He was a bit dull, I'm just not going to give him points'. Either you win the round or you didn't based on the judging criteria. It doesn't have to be a thriller. I like excitement too, but as a boxing fan, we should see different things and score it as fairly as we can. All this talk of underdogs and needing to do significantly more than the other guy is just a corrupt way of thinking.