Beating a champ for his title

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

Some people say you have to give champs the benefit when in extremely tight fights. I notice people saying stuff like he didnt do enough to take the title away. However if it was a non title fight people would say the challenger would have won. Why do people think the champ should have an advantage? To me it is clear. You don't have to beat a champ badly. You just have to win more rounds. Why do some people feel a champ needs to be dominated to lose his belt.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I think the perception is a guy has to win the title and not be given the title by judges. In a twelve round fight, of course he has to win seven of them but he needs to win those seven strongly. Not necessarily dominating but in a way that he clearly won those rounds, Jermain Taylor's title victory over Bernard Hopkins comes to mind.

 

[P03t]

I'm a strong believer you have to take the belt....you have to beat the champ....I cringe when I see a champ lose his strap to a close decision....

 

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

I'm a strong believer you have to take the belt....you have to beat the champ....I cringe when I see a champ lose his strap to a close decision....

See that is what I don't get. You have to earn the right to be the victory. Home field type stuff irritates me.

 

[P03t]

See that is what I don't get. You have to earn the right to be the victory. Home field type stuff irritates me.

yeah....I would never want to fight in my opponents home town....you know you won't get a decision...

but when it comes to the champ I always felt strong that it has to be definitive win....its fucked up to see a guy lose his strap to a close decision that could have went either way....

"To be the man, You Have to beat the man"
-Ric Flair

 

[Zeferino]

yeah....I would never want to fight in my opponents home town....you know you won't get a decision...

but when it comes to the champ I always felt strong that it has to be definitive win....its fucked up to see a guy lose his strap to a close decision that could have went either way....

"To be the man, You Have to beat the man"
-Ric Flair

This is kind of why I never thought Cory Spinks should have gotten the decision of Ricardo Mayorga. I didn't think that was a performance worthy of dethroning a champion.

 

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

all you got to do is win 7 rounds in my book. they don't have to be spectacular or anything. you just got to win.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

all you got to do is win 7 rounds in my book. they don't have to be spectacular or anything. you just got to win.

Yep, but you have to win them strong. Close rounds will probably go to the champ and you don't get seven rounds.

 

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

Yep, but you have to win them strong. Close rounds will probably go to the champ and you don't get seven rounds.

So why do you judge a round in a non title fight differently than a title fight?

 

[Zeferino]

It's a matter of culture and perception. It's like boning your wife, someone else's wife, or your girlfriend. All three of those types of sex may feel different but it's all just fucking in the end.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

So why do you judge a round in a non title fight differently than a title fight?

There isn't as much at stake in a non-title fight as a title fight so where in one case you give a guy the benefit of the doubt, in the case of a non-title fight, you don't.

 

[TJervey]

So why do you judge a round in a non title fight differently than a title fight?

Because there is so much more at stake. It's really not just about the fight at hand. When there is a close fight, you really leave it to the discretion of the judges if you don't clearly win. There is a difference between clearly winning and dominating. But essentially, it goes both ways, as most champions have the luxury of fighting more often in or around their hometowns, so it is much harder to get a 'fair' decision. Essentially, for a fighter to win a relatively close decision against a champion then in a lot of cases he won by a bigger margin than scored...

 

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

Because there is so much more at stake. It's really not just about the fight at hand. When there is a close fight, you really leave it to the discretion of the judges if you don't clearly win. There is a difference between clearly winning and dominating. But essentially, it goes both ways, as most champions have the luxury of fighting more often in or around their hometowns, so it is much harder to get a 'fair' decision. Essentially, for a fighter to win a relatively close decision against a champion then in a lot of cases he won by a bigger margin than scored...

Well then thats crazy. The margin to when should not change because you are the champ or challenger. That thinking is what ruins fights.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Well then thats crazy. The margin to when should not change because you are the champ or challenger. That thinking is what ruins fights.

No, I think it's fair. As a challenger, you should have to beat the champ and not have judges give you a title. The champ is a proven commodity. He most likely went to another guy's hometown or place where he was at an advantage and beat him to become champion and a new challenger should have to do the same thing.

 

[Jordan Diddy Buk]

No, I think it's fair. As a challenger, you should have to beat the champ and not have judges give you a title. The champ is a proven commodity. He most likely went to another guy's hometown or place where he was at an advantage and beat him to become champion and a new challenger should have to do the same thing.

I must be the dumbest dude ever. Cause the way I hear people talk is like this. You are saying that fighter a fights figther b. If fighter a and b fights in an untitled match all either fighter needs to win is a 10-9 score a round. But if they meet the same punches and same events in the ring would cause the round to be a draw cause the champ in a title fight gets the edge against the challenger. So in order to win a round as a challenger the fighter would need a 10-8 round just to get a score of 10-9 in a title fight. Which has to be the if you go by how some of you are talking. I did agree that you have to do more to beat a champ than you have to beat a untitled fighter.

How would you score the first sergio pwill fight if sergio was champ, then pwill was, and with neither being champ? Because the scoring would be different since the title holder status carries weight with some of yall.

 

[P03t]

I must be the dumbest dude ever. Cause the way I hear people talk is like this. You are saying that fighter a fights figther b. If fighter a and b fights in an untitled match all either fighter needs to win is a 10-9 score a round. But if they meet the same punches and same events in the ring would cause the round to be a draw cause the champ in a title fight gets the edge against the challenger. So in order to win a round as a challenger the fighter would need a 10-8 round just to get a score of 10-9 in a title fight. Which has to be the if you go by how some of you are talking. I did agree that you have to do more to beat a champ than you have to beat a untitled fighter.

How would you score the first sergio pwill fight if sergio was champ, then pwill was, and with neither being champ? Because the scoring would be different since the title holder status carries weight with some of yall.

that fight should have been a draw....IMO...