What does the saying "you have to really beat the champ to take his title" mean?

[beenKOed]

The first time I heard it was from George Foreman.
What I have always believed it to mean is that that you came for the belt, you didn't come to negotiate, you didn't come for a decision, you came to prove to everyone watching or listening that you want it more, deserve it more, did more, and the only way you are leaving is with the belt period. You are not going leave a spread of doubt in anyone's mind that that belt belongs to you.

[Beanflicker]

The first time I heard it was from George Foreman.
What I have always believed it to mean is that that you came for the belt, you didn't come to negotiate, you didn't come for a decision, you came to prove to everyone watching or listening that you want it more, deserve it more, did more, and the only way you are leaving is with the belt period. You are not going leave a spread of doubt in anyone's mind that that belt belongs to you.

So how does it work in practice?

Assuming there isn't a knock out or stoppage, a fight is scored by who wins the most amount of rounds. Should judges score rounds to the champ if the challenger doesn't completely dominate them?

Or hypothetically, lets say we have a back and forth fight. The challenger wins 6 rounds and the champion wins 6 rounds, and when I say win I mean CLEAR winner, no room for interpretation. But the champ is deducted a point in one round for a foul. So the challenger, on the cards, wins the fight by the slimmest of margins: one point. Does the challenger deserve the belt? Or do the judges go back and retroactively give the champ one of the rounds he lost to give him the win?

[beenKOed]

The first time I heard it was from George Foreman.
What I have always believed it to mean is that that you came for the belt, you didn't come to negotiate, you didn't come for a decision, you came to prove to everyone watching or listening that you want it more, deserve it more, did more, and the only way you are leaving is with the belt period. You are not going leave a spread of doubt in anyone's mind that that belt belongs to you.

So how does it work in practice?

Assuming there isn't a knock out or stoppage, a fight is scored by who wins the most amount of rounds. Should judges score rounds to the champ if the challenger doesn't completely dominate them?

Or hypothetically, lets say we have a back and forth fight. The challenger wins 6 rounds and the champion wins 6 rounds, and when I say win I mean CLEAR winner, no room for interpretation. But the champ is deducted a point in one round for a foul. So the challenger, on the cards, wins the fight by the slimmest of margins: one point. Does the challenger deserve the belt? Or do the judges go back and retroactively give the champ one of the rounds he lost to give him the win?

Sir, we are a talking about giving everything you have, about holding nothing back. About making a bargain with yourself to do, for the next 12 Rds, everything legal you know how to do to win.
Having that attitude does not guarantee a victory or change the rules of boxing. He might still win or lose by a slim margin, but he wants every person who saw the fight to know he gave the Champion all he had.

[holmcall]

Usually means that in a close fight, the Champ retains his crown. No real logic to it. Max Kellerman is a strong advocate of it.


The notion has been around since I have followed boxing and that tracks to 1945.

[Beanflicker]

Usually means that in a close fight, the Champ retains his crown. No real logic to it. Max Kellerman is a strong advocate of it.


The notion has been around since I have followed boxing and that tracks to 1945.

So that means giving the closer rounds automatically to the champ?

[holmcall]

Usually means that in a close fight, the Champ retains his crown. No real logic to it. Max Kellerman is a strong advocate of it.


The notion has been around since I have followed boxing and that tracks to 1945.

So that means giving the closer rounds automatically to the champ?

Kinda of, yes. If the judges can redo their cards at the end, they can do it more easily. This might help some: http://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/1d0xrj/traditionally_in_boxing_did_you_have_to_beat_the/

[holmcall]

Arghh Erragh, how the f--k do you make a link work?

[Addicted to_boxing]

First of all it is thrown verbally but not implemented much anymore. A perfect example was the recent fight between Lara and Alavarez . Lara simply did not convince the judges that he would go through hell to dethrone the champion. He thought the could be cute and jab and not utilize actual defensive maneuvers but actually run away from action and How many people are stupid enough to KTFO out of a women in a casino which are known to have cameras everywhere. He should be suspended that amount for shear stupidity and those supporting him banned from here and given souvenir dunce hats. Rice is not doing time for the simple reason of who he is and the NFL is setting a new bar to lessen the penalty Irsay will receive. In most domestic violence cases the man can hardly speak and the woman is heard first. In this case that woman was KTFO and unable speakearn a decision. This was the gauge used before the BS compu-punch statistics came into play. It was nice to see old school boxing scoring mentality used in the scoring vs the new metro sexual scoring . I can assure you Lara knows he could have given more but was not willing to risk anything after the 3rd round.

[brocktonblockbust]

to me bro, it means the champ is the chamo and to win the title you have to win it convincingly, its not like 2 guys who neither is the champ , and one shaves the other one by 1 point, etc. No champion is gonna get shaved by 1 point, its gotta be 3 points to shave a champ. Or a KO of course

[p4pking]

Yeah it's a weird one to hear today. When you had more undisputed champions fighting a lot more often, it may have held some clout, I dunno. If you have a challenger who is fairly unknown or untested, against a guy who has really established himself, then maybe the latter will get some benefit of the doubt, or score points for "ring generalship" in the late rounds of a close fight just having been there before, that kind of thing.