I Don't Get It

[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.

[JazMerkin]

I think the having to win a fight decisively to become the champ only really matters if the Champ is

a) at home
b) has a reasonable following
c) has a high-profile promoter in the region the fight is being judged.

otherwise there's a good chance they'll be happy to stiff the 'champ'.

I've seen a lot of people espouse this frankly ridiculous theory over the past week, ironically the same people who would almost certainly not have applied it the night Ricky Hatton fought Luis Collazo (which I had Hatton edging 114-113 thanks to the KD, but hey I'm not giving the Champ all the close rounds for being the champ).

Another example of the Champ not getting the breaks in this way, Oscar De La Hoya vs Pernell Whitaker. See the 3 points above & then find me an example that breaks that.

[amat]

De La Hoya- Whitaker is the fight no one ever cares to argue against the decision. That was BS with the most ridiculous scores imaginable, imo Whitaker won that fight by at least 2 rounds. I have never seen a DLH scorecard that sits well with me for that fight.