Question: Since does a champion lose a belt to a bad or close decision and don't feel they NEED to get revenge? Boxer now and days are PUSSIES! Pac lose to Bradley by decisions, have to give this man his belts, and feels he has nothing to prove. Why don't the public give him **** for his dumb as decisions. Perfect examples of what REAL boxers do during a controversial decision. I can understand the WINNER not wanting to rematch but not the LOSER! Roy Jones vs Griffin. - Roy lose his belt and got an L on his record for a bad decision and demanded a rematch. Chavez-Taylor - They rematched Lewis vs Holyfield - Lewis could of said, the world know I won so I dont want a rematch
Except John actually won that fight. And if you don't think so, I wouldn't find you credible on the fight if you cried a robbery... --- Louis rematched Walcott immediately to turn around that bad decision. Schmeling rematched Louis to try to prove that his KO was no fluke. Marciano rematched LaStarza, well, eventually, to turn around that close fight. Tunney rematched Dempsey out of public demand. Monzon rematched Valdez immediately to win decisively w/o excuses. Floyd rematched Castillo immediately to turn around that close fight. Mares rematched Agbeko immediately to turn around what should have been a DQ loss. Sergio isn't complaining about rematching Chavez out of public demand. Banks isn't complaining about rematching Mitchell immediately to prove his KO was no fluke. --- Having said all that, I'm glad Pac fought JMM again to try to right his defeat (in the eyes of the majority) to JMM in III. As opposed to trying to get the decision again (as he won in the eyes of the majority) against Bradley. Now, having said that, I would rather see Bradley/Pac II after such a brutal KO than Pac/JMM V. I don't want to see Pac get hurt so badly again. Pac/JMM can never fight again and it's a concluded rivalry to most, advantage Marquez. But, JMM IV over Bradley II was the right move at the time. No complaints there.
