I think it would be pointless to take away stalemate. It only gives a form of babying, that the OP claims is already being given. Instead of whining, learning how to look far enough ahead to avoid it would be the answer. If you really dominated your opponent, you should have easily been able to avoid this.
If you wanted to try to make certain rules to take stalemate away, only to help crown a champion, good luck. It would be difficult to expect players to prepare for that unique circumstance, but yet play as it is now otherwise. I realize most games are timed today, but they weren't always and aren't always. I play many untimed games. Untimed games need a way to deal with a tie, regardless of the type.
We could argue the meaning of the terminology, of draw and stalemate. We could argue whether they should be interchangeable terms, but I won't waste my time. If the implied differences between the terms checkmate and stalemate aren't already obvious, regardless of how it happens, then it would certainly be a waste of my time to try to convince you otherwise.
Not all draws are as a result of someone simply avoiding a loss. Both sides may have very well played outstanding, with "best play" resulting in an inevitable draw. Whether it is perpetual check, 3 fold repitition, 50 move rule, insufficient material, the game needs an out, incase one of these situations occur.
You aren't simply suggesting that the rule for stalemate be changed, but also the rule's requirement for a victory in a certain respect. Checkmate is required for a victory, unless you count someone's clock running out, or resigning. If you weren't savvy enough to checkmate them or force them to resign, you didn't truly beat them, you won on a technicality, that I am sure you'll take all day long. It is funny you'd take that, but won't give the technicality to someone you couldn't really beat either. That is hypocrisy in action, if I ever saw it.
I generally don't think much of the victories in short timed games, in which an opponent weasled out a win, due to his opponent running out of time, though he literally had been beaten otherwise. I am not demanding that rule be changed, especially considering the inevitable conclusion, if the game were to have continued. I say this from the wisdom that timed games need a logical conclusion when someone's timer runs out. The beauty of chess is that there are many strategies, complications and results. Otherwise it would be a boring, monotonous game.
I only have one more way of showing the hypocrisy in not thinking your opponent should be able to avoid losing, even if they can't win by an out right fight. If you found yourself in a fight, in which you had offensive capability at the begining, that you lost through the course of the fight, wouldn't you try to avoid losing the fight, resisting in any manner you had left, even if you couldn't really inflict any damage?
If you were a boxer in a match, realizing you couldn't knockout your opponent, you were questioning whether you could match your opponent's punching in the eyes of the judges, and didn't want to quit incase somehow your opponent made a mistake, tired, etc, wouldn't it make sense to fight not to lose, even if you weren't able to fight to win outright, if it were your only hope for a miracle? If you don't think so, your pride is so great, it is not only severely clouds your sense of sportsmanship and competition, but also your judgment in general.
Interesting that you should use a boxing analogy. If the object of a boxing match is to knock some one out, why isn't it a draw if no one gets knocked out?
Winning is the object in boxing, as in chess, any way you can, within the rules of course. Sometimes it is a draw if no one gets knocked out boxing, just like in chess, it can be if there isn't a checkmate.
Can you imagine having to have three judges to decide who won a chess game or arguing Houdini's decision for who was ahead at the end, from a pure theory stand point.
Oy Vey, lets have stalemates too, ok?
i've never experienced it, but stalemating your opponent in a winning position must be tough. extra pieces do help win, but the end objective is checkmate, with stalemate being the danger to avoid.
it was drilled it into me to always watch out for possibly stalemating the opponent in a winning position, all the effort made to gain a decisive advantage could be lost in a flash
if in a losing endgame, stalemate is a saving grace, so i was instructed to watch carefully for it, i pulled off a few too
if you learn from your mistakes, stalemate is hardly an issue, but when you drag it up on the Internet .... crikey!!
I stalemated a dead won game once, many months ago, and about puked, but I still don't think they should abolish it.