I don't hate rematches as long as we know going into the fight. That wasn't the case with Whyte vs Povetkin ( for me anyhow ). Had I known about the rematch clause I wouldn't have invested my time thinking about and watching the first fight. Felt really cheated on that one. Rematch clauses in championship fights has been the norm for as long as I can remember, Rematchroom didn't invent them.
At least that was a two-way clause. This guy is supporting one-way clauses in favor of the house fighter;
I don’t like it for most cases. What if the fight sucks? What if it’s a one sided beat down? A lot of fans actually wanted Pacquiao and Marquez to fight again. Same with Holyfield and Bowe. Whyte vs Povetkin 2? Not so much. Usyk vs AJ 2? Nah. The beauty of the first fight was the mystery of the unknown. I don’t think anyone wants to see Usyk win another comfy decision by out boxing AJ. We’ve already seen it and I have no doubts the same will happen again.
Its a business decision, and hurting the sport. Someone mentioned earlier about the old timers having many rematches, but back then they thought far more often so its not the same argument. These days your lucky to see a top fighter fight 3 times as a year. Too much time between fights is also a business decision that is hurting the sport. Some fighters are getting old before they even have a shot at the title due to the business first approach.
I really don't like it. Especially as you also know the loser wants their recovery time, and time to potentially change trainer, etc. etc. Happy to call Hearn out on this crap But let's be fair here, PBC are just as bad. Fury v Wilder 3 (second fight was definitive) This content is protected (first fight was definitive and a WBA eliminator) Their chosen guys didn't win, so they held up the division. At least Matchroom didn't have us waiting 20 months.
Rematches are KILLING boxing. It's disgusting. Sometimes a rematch is right. And sometimes not. If a guy like Lara destroys Warrington there is no reason to make a rematch. If there is a fight like Fury vs. Wilder 2 there is no reason to make a third fight (albeit i enjoyed the third one). If there is a fight like Povetkin vs. Whyte...there is no reason to make a rematch. Rematches should be used as a tool if a fight ended in a close decision (split, majority, draw) OR if one guy scored a super late KO after losing almost all rounds before. Also it can be used if there is an unnatural ending or NC. Otherwise i do not see a reason to make rematch after rematch after rematch just because "the A-side lost and should get a chance for revenge". Boxing is a mess and this is one reason for it. Other reasons are **** matchmaking and **** judging.
I don't mind rematches where a controversial decision or entertaining first fight has warranted it.(Froch-Groves, Ward-Kov) The majority these day's just waste time in the short careers fighters have, especially with only fighting once/twice a year.
Don't mind, but the time between should be more like 3 months than 6-9 months (see Tyson-Ruddock, fought in March rematched in June). Also its pretty risky if a promoter's star gets KOd takes a rematch and gets KOd again.
Immediate rematches should only happen for controversial decisions and close wars. Otherwise, a loser should have to work their way up the ladder like the other contenders and earn their rematch. If Wallin KO2 Whyte, as an example, there absolutely shouldn't be a rematch.
Totally disagree. Series of fights provide great drama. In fact I fully believe the fighter who lost should be chasing that rematch, and I think it's a mess if they don't. If Warrington just accepted his loss to Lara, never fought him again and dodged his way back to the top? Screw that. Have the rematch, fight that fire, feel that smoke.
