EVERYONE KNOWS YOU WON -- BUT YOU LOST

60+ years ago (1947) I and my brother listend to the Joe Louis / Jersey Joe Walcott boxing match description over the radio.  We had to beg EFR Dion's permission to allow us to listen to the radio in our bedroom beyond the 9:00 PM curfew for the "great" occasion.  It was the "fight of the century", just as they all are.  That's another "thought" that will have to wait.
We listened.  It was clear to everyone that Walcott had won.  The judges proclaimed Louis the winner.  My brother and I were puzzled.  When we brought the topic to the wise man of the household all we got was "If Walcott was to win he had to knock Louis out.  That's what it takes to beat the champion."
The other night, I watched the first championship fight I had taken time to watch in many decades.  It pitted Manny Pacquiao against Juan Manuel Marquez.  Many people think that Marquez beat Pacquiao.  But Pacquiao was the champion going in and of course, he left the ring still the champion.  Marquez failed to knock him out.  In fact, Marquez failed to take the fight to Pacquiao.  He fought not to lose.  Pacquiao also fought not to lose.  So what took place was  a contest of counter punching.  The outcome, of course, was then decided in favor of the reigning champion.  It has ever been such in boxing.  Now that I am somewhat older, I think I have the intellectual answer to the situation.
In boxing, there are only two people contesting.  In the case of the champion being challenged by a non-champion, the preferential option of higher capability is on the side of the champion.  After all, the champion has already proven his competence.  The challenger has shown high proficiency, but not to the level achieved by the champion.  It is therefore incumbent upon the challenger to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is better than the champion, not only on this given occasion, but on any other occasion that might present itself.  It does not prove anything if the challenger performs at a level that shows simply that he is good enough not to lose to the champion.  Let's stay "real" here.   A duel that is a "draw" only proves that the adversaries are both poor shots.  In that case, the upper hand does not change sides, does it?  So, in boxing.  A margin of victory by one or two points, even under the careful electronic supervision of the latest and most keely developped technology does not a victor make.  It only proves that the challenger avoided a defeat at the hands of a person who has proven himself to be more profficient up to this point.  So, mister challenger, you lose.
Such is the logic and the culture of boxing.  It is not left up to the spectators to decide.  It is not up to the warriors to decide.  It is a sport and it is therefore up to the arbiters to make the ultimate decision.  The warriors know the logic, the culture and the rules.  The warrior, such as the one who dared challenge Manny Pacquiao on this night, who dares to fight so as not to lose rather than to fight to win decisively is doomed to lose.  That is exactly what happened on November 12, 2011 to Juan Manuel Marquez.   It took me some  60+ years to understand, but I am glad that I now can be comfortable with the logic and the culture -- but not the sport as such.  But that is another story.