The "You have to decisively beat the champion to be the champion" is flawed logic.

Janpei

Janpei

Orange Belt
@Orange
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
392
Reaction score
0
This is not a topic about who should have or shouldn't have won Gus/Jones.

However, after the fight, what I noticed from my group of friends, from people's Facebook statuses, and other fighter's Tweets is that they've asserted that Gus didn't win the fight not because he lost more rounds, but because Jones is the Champion, and as such has the Championship advantage to gain an edge in rounds.

What sense does this make?

And why is this always brought up in combat sports? Whether it's boxing, kickboxing, or MMA, viewers are always willing to score decisions in favor of the Champion due to some mythical championship advantage.

Why?

I mean, you don't see the NFL giving the Baltimore Ravens an automatic 7 pts at the beginning of each game. The Miami Heat won't begin each game this season with points already on the board.

So why is it that people will firmly argue that a champion needs to be finished to lose?

If anything, shouldn't it be the other way around? As a Champion, you should show why you're where you're at by shutting down challengers. To me, a Champion needing to prove why he's a Champion makes a hell of a lot more sense than a fighter having to prove why he's a challenger.
 
Depends if they mean it normatively or descriptively.
 
It's just a stupid saying they use to brush off the problem of shitty judging. I bet the UFC is real glad gus said it.
 
Balli said:
That logic isn't true. Look at Edgar-Penn or Benson-Edgar. JoJo is better than Gus. JoJo is a UFC champion and Gus is not. Get over it.
Click to expand...

It's not the decision I'm upset with. I loved the fight. Would love to see them do it again.

It's this contingency of people who say "Oh, Gus looked good, but he didn't finish Jones. You gotta beat the champ to be champ." that bothers me. Almost reminds me of Machida/Shogun I discussions.
 
It's from when boxing started to become corrupt. Promoters would say this kind of thing to justify awful decision to protect champs.

Reigning champs = more money.
 
Stwonnie said:
It's just a stupid saying they use to brush off the problem of shitty judging. I bet the UFC is real glad gus said it.
Click to expand...

This. It's like Bendo/Gil, where Bendo sleepwalked and looked like shit until about halfway round 3, but still didn't look like more of a champ than Gil did, they were close and about even.

But the champ gets the nod when things are too close to call? Sometimes. But overall judging is shitty.

The only way Gus could have won the decision was if he wrestlefucked Jones for a round. In a primarily stand up battle, champs almost ALWAYS get the nod unless they got their ass beat for all 5 rounds.


Or Machida/Shogun. Holy fuck was that a fked up decision... and I don't like either guy at all.

DesertStomper said:
It's from when boxing started to become corrupt. Promoters would say this kind of thing to justify awful decision to protect champs.

Reigning champs = more money.
Click to expand...

I hate tinfoil hat shit but your first point is 100% right, boxing said the same exact shit.

Anyway since it's kinda getting obvious where the winds are sailing, think ill take a long break from MMA. Take care guys
 
It's biased reasoning. Saying, "That was a close round, but he's the champion so he won" is the same as saying, "That was a close round, but I like him more so he won."
 
Agreed with the consensus.

A fight is a fight, and if the Champion loses, then that's it.

It shouldn't have to be a Blowout before the belt changes hands.
 
It's a myth carried over from boxing. When a championship fight starts, there is no champion. Whoever wins the fight is it.

In reality, we humans are swayed by emotions and history. The Reputations of champions can be an x-factor. I think that's where this idea that a challenger has to win decisively comes from.
 
Balli said:
That logic isn't true. Look at Edgar-Penn or Benson-Edgar. JoJo is better than Gus. JoJo is a UFC champion and Gus is not. Get over it.
Click to expand...

You troll a lot but seem to only praise athletic and explosive fighters. You're like those white kids who call racist on anything said to any race but say nothing about racism to whites

Coward
 
I never like Bendo as champ cuz I never thought he beat Frankie. And shit he almost became the most defendingest (?) champ the division ever had. Still I hated him. Logic stands.

And also, this is not about last saturday, just my opinion on your topic.
 
It's the old saying of, "To be the champ you have to beat the champ." and there is some truth to the statement.

I felt the fight was a split decision going to Jones, I was very surprised at the unanimous decision until I saw the 3rd judge's retarded scoring.

At the end of the fight the challenger doesn't normally eek out a win against the champ, he either beats them convincingly (KO/TKO or otherwise) or he goes home a loser.
 
The comparison to Bball and Fball is irrelevant as the scoreboard is obvious - yes, there are refs that make calls, but the calls have very little room for subjective interpretation.

In fighting you have to award a round to a fighter... and if you are being objective about it, you will normally either judge to your norms (i.e., you favor being busy over control, or you favor jabs over leg kicks)... BUT if it is really close you often give the round to the better fighter.
Why? Because it was close, so he had to have won it because he is the champ.
 
boz said:
I never like Bendo as champ cuz I never thought he beat Frankie. And shit he almost became the most defendingest (?) champ the division ever had. Still I hated him. Logic stands.

And also, this is not about last saturday, just my opinion on your topic.
Click to expand...

I love Ben Henderson, but his rematch with Edgar and his fight with Gil were perfect examples of what I'm talking about.

Ben was arguably getting beat in both fights, but there was a very vocal group of people quickly resorting to "You gotta beat the champ to be the champ" as a scapegoat to explain why Bendo won.

casnow said:
The comparison to Bball and Fball is irrelevant as the scoreboard is obvious - yes, there are refs that make calls, but the calls have very little room for subjective interpretation.

In fighting you have to award a round to a fighter... and if you are being objective about it, you will normally either judge to your norms (i.e., you favor being busy over control, or you favor jabs over leg kicks)... BUT if it is really close you often give the round to the better fighter.
Why? Because it was close, so he had to have won it because he is the champ.
Click to expand...

Definitely have to disagree. When a fight starts, there are no champions and challengers, only two men in a cage. If you wanna say Jones won because he was more active or did more damage or won more rounds, that's one thing. To skip all of that and immediately go to saying Jones won because he's the Champion and Gus didn't finish him...that's a world of difference.
 
Janpei said:
This is not a topic about who should have or shouldn't have won Gus/Jones.

However, after the fight, what I noticed from my group of friends, from people's Facebook statuses, and other fighter's Tweets is that they've asserted that Gus didn't win the fight not because he lost more rounds, but because Jones is the Champion, and as such has the Championship advantage to gain an edge in rounds.

What sense does this make?

And why is this always brought up in combat sports? Whether it's boxing, kickboxing, or MMA, viewers are always willing to score decisions in favor of the Champion due to some mythical championship advantage.

Why?

I mean, you don't see the NFL giving the Baltimore Ravens an automatic 7 pts at the beginning of each game. The Miami Heat won't begin each game this season with points already on the board.

So why is it that people will firmly argue that a champion needs to be finished to lose?

If anything, shouldn't it be the other way around? As a Champion, you should show why you're where you're at by shutting down challengers. To me, a Champion needing to prove why he's a Champion makes a hell of a lot more sense than a fighter having to prove why he's a challenger.
Click to expand...

I hope this isn't in regards to Jones/Gustafsson. Seriously, if it is... wow, just wow.

What fucking logic is it that the challenger wins a close fight? You can certainly argue that Jones did enough to win. The judges felt Jones won more rounds. They didn't say Jones lost 3/5 or 4/5 but he wins because Gustafsson didn't decisively win each round.

Close rounds that go either way, can guess what.... here's the great part, GO EITHER WAY!!! If you think those 1st few rounds were CLEARLY Gus', then thank to fuck you are not a judge. Enough bad ones out there, already.
 
You don't crown new champions with unconvincing decisions. If you deserve the belt, then you should prove without a doubt why you deserve it over the guy who already decisively earned the belt.
 
chinarice said:
I hope this isn't in regards to Jones/Gustafsson. Seriously, if it is... wow, just wow.

What fucking logic is it that the challenger wins a close fight? You can certainly argue that Jones did enough to win. The judges felt Jones won more rounds. They didn't say Jones lost 3/5 or 4/5 but he wins because Gustafsson didn't decisively win each round.

Close rounds that go either way, can guess what.... here's the great part, GO EITHER WAY!!! If you think those 1st few rounds were CLEARLY Gus', then thank to fuck you are not a judge. Enough bad ones out there, already.
Click to expand...

As I said, this isn't about that particular fight. I scored it a draw, but didn't complain when Jones won (outside of the 49-46 score). What annoyed me was when the fight came up in conversation at work when three of my co-workers were like "Yeah, Gus looked good, but he didn't finish Jones. That's why he lost." or when I go on Twitter and see guys like JDS say "You have to beat the Champion to become Champion."

I don't agree with that. At all. If you performed well, made it a fight, worked your opponent. It shouldn't matter who is and isn't Champion in a close round. What should matter is who was more active, accurate, and in better control.
 
It doesn't come from anything corrupt or silly like I am reading in this thread.

What the term means is that the champion will usually get the nod by the judges in close fights. So in order to beat the champion and take his belt you usually have to decisively beat him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,979
Messages
55,458,828
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top