The Sky Sports commentators were already discussing who would win the rematch by about round 9 of Joshua V Usyk lol.
So you think EVERY fight on the planet should have a rematch? Or how do i interpret your statement? Or just title fights? How do you draw a line with that? It's almost impossible. As i said i'm not entirely against rematches. Sometimes it's a must have thing like Wilder vs. Fury 2 or even Joshua vs. Ruiz 2. I want to see Chocolatito vs. Estrada 4...no problem with that. But sometimes it's just pathetic bull**** like Lara vs. Warrington 2. If somebody dominated the first fight and beat the crap out of a fighter, there is no reason for a rematch if the first fight was a NON TITLE fight. Lara dominated the first fight, Warrington never really had a chance and was dropped multiple times while he wasn't able to hurt Lara once. Lara was winning almost all rounds. AND it wasn't even a title fight lol because Josh vacated the belt before. Based on your logic every fighter who thinks he can get revenge in a rematch should get a rematch? Yeah thanks...**** boxing then. Waste of time. I want to see the best fighting the best not Whyte rematching Povetkin or Wallin until he beats them after losing the first fight.
I agree to a certain point. If Lara would have won the first Warrington fight via split decision after a 12 round war with both guys having their moments, i would 100% support a rematch because it was a great fight. But Warrington/Lara wasn't a great fight. It was a beatdown. Lara battered Josh across the ring and beat the living crap out of him. And you saw in the second figh that Josh just wasn't taking the Lara power too well early on again. In my opinion rematches should be made after a fight. There shouldn't be such thing like a rematch clause. If the fight was close and great for the fans...make a rematch. No problem with that. I'm looking forward to Chocolatito/Estrada 3. And i'd probably love to see a fourth one.
Rematch clauses shouldn't be allowed unless it's for title fights IMO. Rematch clauses can save lesser fighters from keeping a hold of titles they may have won during a fluke night, and champions a chance to reclaim their titles. But apart from that, there shouldn't be rematch clauses.
As a fan, I love upsets its why I watch boxing now. So seeing the fight again really interests me. If I cared more about the welfare of the boxers, I'd argue that the rematch clause should always give the victor the lions share of the purse. But then again, if they aren't happy they don't need to accept the fight in the first place. Knocking out Warrington was Laras lottery ticket. A rematch is an easy payday because he only has to replicate what he did. Same with Helenius and Kownacki. Povetkin vs Whyte didn't go that way obviously. I'd say the only rematch I ever truly felt was pointless, was Tarver vs Dawson.
