Take for instance, Roy Jones for this defeats over Hopkins and Toney. Now, the wins weren't an utter destruction, they were some what competetive, but because Hopkins gotten better with age, and Toney was drained folks down play Jone's Legacy because it was out of his hands why he bested those fighters. How about Hopkins, will his legacy be tarnished because he's the recognized LHW Champ and doesn't give Tarver a rematch after peppering his ass? I can understand a close fight: Example If Pac-man doesn't rematch JMM it will definately haunt him. Some folks think that Mercer beat Lewis but Lewis wanted no part in a rematch, no one talks about it tho...why? It certainly didn't tarnish Lewis' Legacy. Why is it that only certain fighters does it matter if a rematch was or wasn't called that it may blemish their Legacy?
You bring up a great point, Mercer did beat him in my opinion. I dont honestly know why some fighters get a rematch and others dont, I guess it depends a little bit on the popularity of the fight itself.
At the end of the day history really only looks at what the records say, and Jones gets a ton of credit for his wins over Hopkins and Toney.
Definitely. :yep And you don't have to go that far . . . just take Winky's case. Where's he now? A lot of credibilty lost.
Rematches are usually only made because of a few reasons. 1) contractual ones. Generally where a champ has a "rematch if lose" clause written into the contract. Eg, Lewis v Rahman II 2) Genuine interest in both fighters, and/or the fact they have put great fights on. Eg, Leonard v Duran, Hearns v Leonard, Gatti v Ward 3) Money. Simple. If enough people will pay, they will rematch. Pac's recent rematches with the mexicans being a good example. 4) A real upset - with the underdog being offered a massive pay rise for the rematch. Underdogs that NEARLY beat the favoured fighter rarely get a rematch (Mercer Lewis being a good example). The interest isn't there, and the favoured fighter that scraped a win doesnt want to fight them again if they don't have to. Lewis v Mercer is a good example. Mercer had the very small ring in his favour. He put on one of the best performances of his career. He got Lewis to brawl with him, a style of fight Mercer would prefer. And he STILL lost. (I could see a draw in that fight TBH). If they matched up again, it's unlikely that Mercer would have the ring in his favour again, the style of fight in his favour again, and would be able to perform as well again - so what would be the point? The only things outside of that I can see that would change that, is if a guy loses early on in his career, then improves drastically afterwards - then perhaps a case could be made for it. (Hopkins Jones is a good example, but at that point in time the onus was on Hopkins to make the fight. Jones could just sit there and say "I beat you once, why would I want to do it again unless it's for a fortune?"
