?Don?t forget that Manny Pacquiao is the current champion. Juan Manuel Marquez needs to win convincingly if he wants to take Pacquiao?s title away.”
This is a line we?ve all heard a lot in the past couple of days. The champion?s advantage, it would seem means that the champion will always get the benefit of the doubt from the judges. If some people are to be believed, Pacquiao was rightfully handed the victory because Marquez did not win the fight convincingly.
However, there is no such thing. The only advantage the champion has is that he gets to keep his title in case of a draw. Pacquiao did not win because he was the defending champion. He won because two of the judges scored more rounds for him.
The champion?s advantage seems to suggest that it is impossible for challengers to win a razor thin decision because they need to take the title away from the champion in a convincing manner. Well, that?s also not true. A lot of challengers have won close decisions in the past.
Jermaine Taylor won a split decision over Bernard Hopkins who was at that time the undisputed middleweight champion with 20 title defenses under his belt. The fight was close. The decision was debatable but two of the judges scored it for Taylor.
Was Taylor?s win convincing? Not by a long shot. But he won, thus proving that you really don?t need to take the title away from the champion. You just have to win more rounds and the title (or in Taylor?s case, titles) will be given to you.
Judges are supposed to treat the two combatants as two blank slates. They should have no names, no histories. Having in mind that one is the champion and the other is the challenger is being biased.
Another issue that came up after the fight was Marquez? tactic of stepping on Pacquiao?s right foot. A lot of people have cried foul with some even calling Marquez a cheater and a dirty fighter.
