Something that bothers me the more I think about it is this whole business of immediate Rematches when the "A-side" loses . Probably 90% of the fights that get broadcast (particularly main events) have somebody at least a 2 or 3 to 1 favourite which is frustrating in itself because we end up with a lack of competitive fights Then somebody like Alexander Povetkin beats Dillian whyte in an ELIMINATOR, and we have to have a rematch . Why? I understand that Whyte was the favourite going in, and longevity wise probably has more to offer the sport than Povetkin, but come off it - Povetkin needs to win twice to get his shot at the title ? The expected script was Whyte wins and finally gets his shot, except AP uppercutted a gigantic hole in that script. The powers that be say run that back , try it again , because they didn't get the outcome they wanted. And with this fight, there is no controversy, no debate, clean cold KO - why run that back? Let AP have his shot and then if he fancies giving Whyte a rematch further down the line, fine. But AP won the eliminator and has earned his shot at the title - why not let him have it ? Also heard Kownacki and Helenius will be rematching - i understand this a little more as it wasn't a title shot at stake, but in a sport where the underdog is quite often a MASSIVE underdog, I want to see the victorious underdog benefiting from their victory, not being forced, either contractually or otherwise, into rematching so that the script can be "corrected". Especially when that underdog is más o menos 40, why use up one of the last couple of fights of his career in a rematch where he conclusively won? Rant over gentlemen, sorry for the essay. Thoughts?
I enjoy them tbh. Guarantees the underdog an easy payday before moving on to bigger and better things.
Only it doesn’t because the underdog never gets a shot at the rubber match if they lose. That’s reserved for the A side
Going back to the Alexander Povetkin situation, he won the first fight as the underdog by brutal knockout, he should now be getting a great payday along with his world title shot, but he has to fight Whyte again for less money and no title shot , so I have to respectfully disagree buddy
If they lose then it justifies the rematch taking place as a competitive fight. If they win they legitimise their position as opposed to just being seen as someone who scored an upset.
But against who? Fury and AJ are busy. So in the mean time Povetkin either waits, fights someone meaningless, or fights a fellow top 5 contender. I know what I prefer.
No. If they lose then they should lose the opportunity of the next step. Losing an eliminator should be just that, they should be eliminated and have to fight their way back up All fighters should be working to the same set of rules, not special rules for some promoters favoured fighters and different rules for everyone else. An eliminator should be just that, as should a mandatory. You cant have double standards or you lose the mainstream audience and normal people, rightly, think the sport is rigged
I see what you're saying , but the whole idea of having a fight to qualify the next fight as a competitive one is embarrassing really, if the fight isn't considered to be competitive then why is it taking place at all? I understand it in a fighters early development , I'm not expecting every single fight to be challenging etc but once fighters have established their level and got themselves to the point where they're involved in an eliminator, the results of that fight should stand : one guy has been eliminated and has to go back and rebuild If the fight is competitive and close enough to where the fans and the public demand a rematch, different story, but NOBODY was asking for a Whyte Povetkin rematch, or a Kownacki Helenius rematch
Povetkin will get paid one of the biggest purses of his life to fight someone he's just knocked out. What fight is better for him to be in at the moment? Nobody is calling for any Povetkin fight right now. But because of this contract he signed he's guaranteed another big payday.
Absolutely, but it should be Povetkin making that decision, not Eddie Hearn, if Whyte had won as planned , Hearn would not be saying "well the rest of the top 5 are busy, so I'm gonna put Whyte back in with Povetkin" And I'm not against Rematches either , it's more the fact that when the A-side loses its almost like there HAS to be a rematch, like fury v Klitschko - there HAD to be a rematch, contractually, the IBF then stripped fury because he wouldn't be able to fulfill his mandatory, which led to Charles Martin v Glazkov getting the vacant title shot (cheapening the belt) Would anybody sane consider Charles Martin a real champion? I dont know, I know there are valid reasons for Rematches but its the culture of A side loses, and immediately feels entitled to a rematch - why? That's what gets me, not Rematches themselves
Can't argue with that mate, absolutely, and Povetkin is just an example, but do you see what I'm saying with regards to rematches that aren't necessary being forced through just because the favourite lost the first fight ?
100% agree but the rematch shouldn’t be immediate, it should be when the loser earns his place again and the winner has fought his own mandatories or title fight