A-side Rematches - ye or nay?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Mickea4, Feb 13, 2021.

  1. Mickea4

    Mickea4 Member Full Member

    183
    242
    Aug 22, 2018
    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?
     
  2. boxfap

    boxfap MasterGardianElite Full Member

    865
    376
    Aug 2, 2014
    Because promoters are greedy and judges can be bought
     
  3. Likethembigroundchunky

    Likethembigroundchunky Member Full Member

    226
    219
    Nov 2, 2019
    Imo only if there is a title involved. Perk of being the champion.
     
    shza and Mickea4 like this.
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,954
    7,874
    Sep 15, 2009
    I enjoy them tbh.

    Guarantees the underdog an easy payday before moving on to bigger and better things.
     
  5. boxfap

    boxfap MasterGardianElite Full Member

    865
    376
    Aug 2, 2014
    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
     
    Mickea4 likes this.
  6. Mickea4

    Mickea4 Member Full Member

    183
    242
    Aug 22, 2018
    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
     
    Hanz Cholo and MagicE like this.
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,954
    7,874
    Sep 15, 2009
    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.
     
    Mickea4 likes this.
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,954
    7,874
    Sep 15, 2009
    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.
     
    KO KIDD and Mickea4 like this.
  9. boxfap

    boxfap MasterGardianElite Full Member

    865
    376
    Aug 2, 2014
    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
     
  10. Mickea4

    Mickea4 Member Full Member

    183
    242
    Aug 22, 2018
    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
     
    sasto likes this.
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,954
    7,874
    Sep 15, 2009
    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.
     
    KO KIDD and Mickea4 like this.
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    66,954
    7,874
    Sep 15, 2009
    Rematches of boring fights I don't care for.

    Rematches of good fights I do.
     
    KO KIDD likes this.
  13. Mickea4

    Mickea4 Member Full Member

    183
    242
    Aug 22, 2018
    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
     
    Wizbit1013 likes this.
  14. Mickea4

    Mickea4 Member Full Member

    183
    242
    Aug 22, 2018
    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 ?
     
  15. boxfap

    boxfap MasterGardianElite Full Member

    865
    376
    Aug 2, 2014
    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
     
    Mickea4 likes this.