I Don't Get It

[OumaFan]

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.

[Drago]

could question, i mean if u get a draw the champ keeps the belt so he already has an advantage

[Spicoli]

I think that mindset,the phrase, assumes that the label champion is still held in high regard,lofty and acheived only by a 'speciel' class.That 'Champions' carry themselves as such and give maximum effort rather than to preserve status and protect what have become a dime a dozed these days....little shiny trinkets.It is a bit dated and not sure how much water it holds today.

[ElTerribleMorales]

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

[ICB]

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.

Somtimes people use it as an excuse to give there fighter, the benefit of the doubt. I know i've used that excuse a few times, to try and hide the fact a fighter i like got a gift.

[Fenster]

I remember when I first heard that as a boy, even then thinking it's unfair that the champion starts with an advantage.

Clearly it's ridiculous.

I reckon it's an outdated idea.. yet still waffled by boxing pundits/journos so naturally gets repeated by fans.

[AdamGB]

If you say it, I don't think you're agreeing with the statement, you're just saying that if it's close round/fight then the judges are probably wearing 'champ tinted glasses' and are going to see it in the champ's favour.

it's like if you say "fighting in so and so's back yard... you need to knock him out to win' it doesn't mean you're saying that there is some rule in place that means you have to knock a fighter out in his home town in order to get a win, just that you think the judges will favour him.

[OumaFan]

well I don't think people always say it like that, some people seem to just agree with the concept in general but yes its also a justification for bad or iffy judging sometimes.

[bzkfn]

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 think the idea comes from the fans. People generally want to see a knockout, or see a fighter put on a clinic and entertain, so it forces the challenger to show a champions heart, thus deserving the title in the eyes of the fan. I agree its bullshit, but I'd find it hard to consider Dirrell a world champion on a fight where he chose not to fight. Its down to the fact that boxing is a macho sport, and that was fighting like a pussy.

[Hunter]

The only way I could see that applying is if a judge is afraid to score a round even and it was just so close he didnt know who to give it to so he gives it to the champ.....BUT that is WRONG.......

rounds are supposed to be judged evenly but judges want to remian judges and if a promoter/fighter is powerful they will lean toward that fighter I would imagine.....to make it easier to get future work...

[The Boxer]

Excellent topic. People make it seem as though challenger has to beat the champ the same way he might be able to beat another fighter. It's almost like saying the champ can do less to win a fight.

The idea of the whole take the title from the champ thing sounds good but what does this consist of.

[holmcall]

Good tthread topic. Here is what Kellerman had to say a few years back on ESPN:

"Max Kellerman: As for taking the belt - good point. But taking the belt for the champ does not mean what most people think it means. It is noit simply that at the end of the fight you ignore your scorecard and give the fight tot the champ. What it means is this - in close rounds, the champ gets the benefit of the doubt. And yes, it can be argues that keeping that in mind, Mayorga deserved the decision. However, in this case, it is not a long reigning champion versus some unknown contender. Rather, it is a new champ versus the elite fighter from whom he took the title, which might militate against that "take it from the champ" thing. "

[Youngblood]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY2enNCbyZo



(not relevant to this, but still...)

[amat]

I was just saying this exact same thing today after someone told me that Rua didn't do enough to take Machida's title. Bullshit. I agree, um we score fights round by round, there is no way you can just go back and erase round 7 on account that the champ had a pretty good round 8. That's always been pretty fuzzy reasoning.

[Youngblood]

CFH had the best analogy for this. Would it make sense in an NFL game that the opposing team has to score 3 more pts to beat the home team (as in, if tied, home team wins)? Of course not. People would think it is nuts. Because really, it is.