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?