Quote Originally Posted by beenKOed View Post
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?