Which fight is more significant, the first fight or the rematch?

Ever? not even in clear Robberies? What about a terrible referree, or what if it's a very high profile fight and early in the fight one guy gets his eye swollen shut from a headbutt or one guy breaks his hand?

 

No. Don't mistake my post for saying that any fighter who breaks their hands deserves a rematch. HEarns is an amazing boxer but he decided to go to war with Hagler when Hagler put the pressure on. Thats a fault of Hearns being unable to properly adjust. Or maybe he had more than enough ability to adjust but it was rather a loss caused by unclear thinking due to emotion. Though thats a discussion for another time.

Hearns got plenty of credit for that fight. Just goes to show that a history of hand problems doesn't stop a true champion from imposing his will.

 

A fighter who wins a fight has little to gain in a rematch (legacy wise) and a lot to lose.

For example, Duran rematching Leonard didn't have much to gain. He'd already beaten prime Leonard convincingly. Taking the rematch while fat did nothing to enhance his legacy. It only gave the detractors ammo.

 

I think rematches are necessary when the first match is competitive enough. And think about it, without rematches, we wouldn't have the exciting trilogies we've had in the past, for example Morales/Barrera, Marquez/Pac (I know, 4 fights but you get the idea)

There are some circumstances where a rematch is in order.

 

Many times it's not really the result of the fight, but the fight itself. Jmm getting shafted by the judges in 2 out of 3 fights against Pacquiao wasn't the only reason fans wanted these fights over and over again, but each fight was a high quality action fight. Each one became a classic and you knew you were getting your money's worth. In the case of Nelson-Fenech, in the 1rst fight, it seemed Fenech was the better figgter, but the judges robbed him of a victory. Nelson and Fenech had the rematch and Nelson knocks him out. So yes, rematches are definitely necessary.

 

Perhaps you failed to devote enough time to thinking about this. Review the Pac-JMM rematches.

Is #4 not significant?

Rematches are significant simply because no fighter is consistently prepared all the time. Sometimes a fighter can just have an off night.

Sometimes the first fight may be so close, such as the Hopkins-Calzaghe fight, that it warrants a rematch.

Nothing is absolute and rematches have to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
LOL, unless they are robots and not human, it's not anywhere near as cut and dry as you propose.

 

Uppercut tells it like it is ^ (This time )

 

In many cases, even if the first fight was decisive the 2nd or 3rd go the other way and sometimes even completely reversed result.
Lucky punches, injuries, bad day at the office, judges, tactics, ring/glove size, drug testing, location... you name it, can all influence the result in both fights.
Look at Lennox for example, or Ali for that matter.
There are some cases in wich both fighters evolved over time and the 2nd one is fought on an entirely different dynamic.

Also in some cases the first fight is the most important, but in some others the second one.

 

Yes agree totally with this. :good

 

It just depends on the situation. Leonard-Hearns 1 meant more for their all-time standings because both of them were at their peaks (or very close to it), while they had declined by 1989 for the rematch.

On the other hand, Curry-Starling 2 meant more as they were up and coming prospects the first time they fight. They had improved by the rematch and were fighting for the title.

 

I credit Hagler for changing from his usual style and being all over Hearns where it was difficult for Hearns to box and use distance (where he was also most dangerous because he got more leverage on his right hand).

From the 2nd round on, Hearns kept trying to box on tjhe backfoot and using lateral movement but Hagler kept getting to him throughout.

 

Yes they are necessary in many cases as proven already. The thread starter must be just another mentally ill loser.

 

Good example.
There should have been a 3rd fight with Rahman.
This is where being "the bigger name" and the "bigger reputation" unfairly influences people's perceptions. A lot of people insist that the rematch proved Lewis's superiority head-to-head against Rahman.
But it did not. Because Rahman could just as easily whine about losing from a "lucky punch", "bad day at office" or whatever else.

Of course we could say no fighter proves his superiority over another until he's beaten him twice, but boxing would get boring quick if every fight needs a rematch.

Truth is, it's all about having the right manager/lawyer and the right contracts in place. If a fighter has that sort of clout behind him he'll get a decent chance to get his rematch if/when he loses.