The challenger should have to go in there and definitively defeat the champ. Not necessarily a stoppage, but it should be a clearly dominating performance.
I had Frankie outpointing Aldo 48-47 tonight. But should the title really change hands when a fight is that close? No, it shouldn't.
We need to change the judging so it reflects the reality of the situation. To be the man, you gotta beat the man. If you want the belt, you gotta go in there and take it and leave no doubt IMO.
No. You lose the fight, you fuckin lose the fight. 
No.
OP has the correct.
dermotfix -No.
OP has the correct.
Yep
Zanzoken - The challenger should have to go in there and definitively defeat the champ. Not necessarily a stoppage, but it should be a clearly dominating performance.
I had Frankie outpointing Aldo 48-47 tonight. But should the title really change hands when a fight is that close? No, it shouldn't.
We need to change the judging so it reflects the reality of the situation. To be the man, you gotta beat the man. If you want the belt, you gotta go in there and take it and leave no doubt IMO.
Wrong. See Forest vs. Rampage
WTF?
This isn`t boxing,this is MMA.You win the fight by the slimmest of margins....you win the title.
Besides...that`s just a unwritten rule in boxing.
I think most people believe Forrest beat Rampage up pretty handily.
Truth be told, I think Frankie should still be the LW champ. But I guess that is water under the bridge now.
This is such a fucking cop out excuse. If you won the fight even a close fight you won. It shouldn't matter if the guy you fought is the champ or some dude who is ranked 20th. It was a close fight. I figured 48-47 either way would be ok.
Bisping got KOd by Jesus -WTF?
This isn`t boxing,this is MMA.You win the fight by the slimmest of margins....you win the title.
This is how you create people fighting to not lose and point fight.
So should get get a loss or a draw?
A champion is suppose to out point everyone, that's what makes him the champion
GloverRampagedMyBrownEye -Zanzoken - The challenger should have to go in there and definitively defeat the champ. Not necessarily a stoppage, but it should be a clearly dominating performance.
I had Frankie outpointing Aldo 48-47 tonight. But should the title really change hands when a fight is that close? No, it shouldn't.
We need to change the judging so it reflects the reality of the situation. To be the man, you gotta beat the man. If you want the belt, you gotta go in there and take it and leave no doubt IMO.
Wrong. See Forest vs. Rampage
This, based on Forrest Rampage all close challenger figher could go either way.
The inconsistency is ridiculous. I had Aldo 48-47 but wouldn't have gone on a nazi-esque hate speech if Frankie had win like a bunch of people are doing on this site
And I am sure I will get voted down for that opinion and flamed but I don't give a shit.
Maybe I didn't articulate my point well enough.
Scoring based on points, I think Frankie got the edge in rounds 3, 4, and 5. But I think Aldo won the fight as whole; he certainly wasn't defeated.
So it's like the scoring system doesn't really reflect what's actually happening, which is potentially a major problem.
the only way aldo ends fights against elite competition is with his knees.
Dude, people keep bringing this shit up, did no one see the two Bendo vs Edgar fights? Those were definitive in what way?
Got MMAlk - Dude, people keep bringing this shit up, did no one see the two Bendo vs Edgar fights? Those were definitive in what way?
Not to mention the edgar bj fights...
And who determines that? The judges? Please, they do a shit poor job as it is, I dont need them making any more important decisions than they already do. Most of them have proven theyre not competent enough to judge a fight with an official scoring system, I dont need them trying to detrmine who the fucking champ is based on what they consider “dominant”. If you lose, you fucking lose, and if it was that close you can rematch 
There is no official rule that says the challenger has to beat the champ definitively. Thus, judges are under no obligation to follow it. In fact, they would be wrong to apply such reasoning because its not in the rules and it involves predetermined bias.
If some fans really think it should be an official rule, then petition commissions to adopt it. Otherwise, stop citing as a reason to justify the champ getting the nod in a close fight.
Each round is judged independently, and no judge should have a bias against a fighter based on anything other than what happens in the each round.
Lets say that one of the judges had the fight 2-2 going into round 5. What if he gave the round to Aldo, but then said after the fight he actually thought Edgar won it, but since the fight was so close he gave it to the champ, citing the unwritten rule that the challenger must beat the champ definitively.
This unwritten rule, if applied, is unfair and can easily make already sketchy judging even worse.
Zanzoken - Maybe I didn't articulate my point well enough.
Scoring based on points, I think Frankie got the edge in rounds 3, 4, and 5. But I think Aldo won the fight as whole; he certainly wasn't defeated.
So it's like the scoring system doesn't really reflect what's actually happening, which is potentially a major problem.
Possibly true, but that has nothing to do with one fighter being champ or not. If this fight hadn't been for a title, but was still a 5 round fight, you can make the exact same argument that Edgar might have won rounds 3,4,&5, but Aldo's winning of rounds 1&2 were much more definitive, and he won the fight as a whole.
In which case, the problem is with the scoring system, and this silly idea that the champ should be granted a special bias in close fights just because he is the champ makes no sense and is unfair.