So fights where a guy lost the first fight on a just decision and won the rematch on a just decision. How did this happen, what adjustments were made?
Well Ali-Frazier is an example of this. After losing a clear decision (and copping a fair battering as well) Ali won a just but perhaps unfair decision. By unfair I mean by the constant clinching and grabbing of Frazier behind the neck. So whilst Ali was able to score constantly with his jab and right hands he (and Tony Perez) prevented Frazier from getting any work done inside with this ultra-negative tactic. I'd say this was definately an adjustment Ali made to neutralize Fraziers most effective weapon against Ali and whilst it was effective it made for a poor spectacle and probably wasn't in the best spirit of the sport (but then again winning is what matters). Of course we must take into account that Frazier had slipped a fair bit since FOTC as well.
Ali-Frazier - more holding inside and leaning on Frazier Holyfield-Bowe - more movement and jabbing, less exchanging
Roy Jones-Bernard Hopkins. Hopkins adjusted from his 1993 fight by craftily clutching his nuts every time he was punched below the shoulders and collapsing when he had his stubbly hair ruffled. Jones struggled to combat this on account of being deceased.
the 'just decision' part makes it hard, there are numerous fights that had a controversial winner where the controversial winner actually won a fairer decision in the rematch You have MAB-Morales where MAB deserved the first, but Morales maybe deserved the rematch after managing to keep it on the outside in the rematch You have Monzon drawing with Briscoe, Briscoe said Monzon simply improved after becoming champion Charles avenged his defeat to Bivins, I'd guess by improving his defence and boxing smarter. Charles avenged his decision loss to Ray, but that loss was controversial. Walcott avenged his loss to Charles by decision but that win was also controversial. Holman and Burley exchanged decisions, how that went down, who knows? Griffith and Rodriguez split some decisions between them. Oscar lost fairly in the first fight to Mosley but probably earned a win in the rematch. He did that by changing his gameplan to sticking and moving, which worked. Same with Leonard-Duran, Duran probably goes the distance, through Leonard's sticking and moving
IF Ali was allowed to hold/lean on Frazier 149 times in FOTC like he was in teh rematch - would Ali have won??? :think
So we got Frazier Ali where Ali finds a sneaky way to limit Frazier on offence allowing him to keep him off balance and get more of his own shots off. Then Bowe-Holyfield, where Bowe fights more conservatively. Any others?
Ali-Spinks (sorry not meaning to make this an Ali love-in). Ali spent less time trying to rope-a-dope Spinks and instead used the centre ring more, avoided any sustained punishment, landed his jab cleaner, was better conditioned and controlled the fights tempo. The fact Spinks came in completely unfocused and without any game plan didn't hurt Ali's chances either.
Recently Joseph Agbeko revenged his decision loss to Yonnhy Perez via UD. I thought both decisions were fair, even though the 1st fight had that "knockdown"... Agbeko won the second fight by using his underrated boxing skills, whereas he let himself get drawn into a firefight the first time around.
I've been trashed by boxing buddies and others on the internet for saying this but, IMHO, Ali gave the first fight away knowing the green Spinks would give him an immediate rematch, cementing Ali as the only 3-time champ. As a Floyd 'nut-hugger' I'm much more impressed with his performance against Ellis in his attempt to become the only 3-time champ. I guess that's why we're here, to hash out all this stuff...:yep
