That's an interesting point. Regardless, I still see a world champion boxer who has defended the title a few times as more of a champion figure than a tennis pl

That's an interesting point. Regardless, I still see a world champion boxer who has defended the title a few times as more of a champion figure than a tennis player who is currently ranked number one. A tennis player consistently winning most of the grand slams (like Federer a few years ago). I think you can just look at thee things as extensions of the rules of the game itself. A close tennis match isn't won on a simple count of points won. Tennis' scoring system rewards the ability to win important points, rally, etc. Those are the rules of tennis. The rules of championship boxing (or chess playing) is that you have to beat the champion to be the champion. They are also that a boxer is ranked where fans and fighters think they're ranked, not based on some objective analysis of past scorecards. Come from behind knockouts and coming out on top of a close war counts more than winning every round by technical point fighting. Beating a fighter at his own game or being aggressive too. Beating a famous former champion on his way out can count more than a higher ranked but lower profile contender. Games have their own logic. So do meta games like tournaments or championships.