Are rematches always a good idea?

Well then we wouldn't of had some of the greatest rematches/trilogies ever witnessed. It's give and take imo.

 

I liked the rematch last night was a good tactical affair.

 

Hatton-Mayweather!

 

It depends on the circumstances. If the first fight was intresting or of some dispute, of course there intresting.

 

We should support more rematches and trilogies. Boxing does not see enough of them. People are scared.

JMM is a warrior and showed it by facing a dangerous guy he had already beat.

 

To judge the question Rob, you'd needs lots of examples.

The answer would vary for any fight contested. If you were saying should every really competitive/controversial/fight where either man couldve been the winner deserves a rematch, it would then matter a) was it supposed to be a close fight to teach a prospect. If so move on B) does the fighter who deserves a rematch usually
fight this way or was it a one-off? If the latter, see them go their seperate ways. If he is onto something, he can beat someone else then hae a crack.

I'm going off the viewpoint of a promotor who's fighter has just had a tough fight. It really is a seriously hard question to answer because I tend to think it would differ massively from one fight to the next.

 

Wasn't a bad fight. Doesn't taint the first at all. Are the Duran-Leonard fights **** because of their first fight?

 

Aaaaaggggghhhhh!!!! I mis-typed Rob, I meant THIRD fight!

The first fight is one of my personal faves :yep Greatest fighter of the last fifty years :deal

 

Whos in the avvy Flea?

 

Moon.

 

Oh aye should have got that one.

Moon is an animal :deal

 

A better example would be Chavez-Taylor II. Far more one-sided and lacked the wonder of the first, but the first fight still keeps it's feel.

Only sad thing about it is Taylors state now. Apparently Moon is also in a bad way, I'm hoping Lora than clarify, he's the one I heard it from. Sad stuff.