Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by teddybaldock, Oct 19, 2021.

  1. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Sep 15, 2009
    If Wallin sparks out Whyte, why wouldn't you want to see it again?
  2. UmarIFLUmar

    UmarIFLUmar Active Member Full Member

    Jan 8, 2021
    The Sky Sports commentators were already discussing who would win the rematch by about round 9 of Joshua V Usyk lol.
  3. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails... Full Member

    Jul 25, 2015
    I personally would love to see it twice, but that isn't good for the sports development.
  4. f1ght3rz

    f1ght3rz Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jan 31, 2018
    So you think EVERY fight on the planet should have a rematch? Or how do i interpret your statement? Or just title fights? How do you draw a line with that? It's almost impossible.

    As i said i'm not entirely against rematches. Sometimes it's a must have thing like Wilder vs. Fury 2 or even Joshua vs. Ruiz 2. I want to see Chocolatito vs. Estrada problem with that. But sometimes it's just pathetic bull**** like Lara vs. Warrington 2.

    If somebody dominated the first fight and beat the crap out of a fighter, there is no reason for a rematch if the first fight was a NON TITLE fight.

    Lara dominated the first fight, Warrington never really had a chance and was dropped multiple times while he wasn't able to hurt Lara once. Lara was winning almost all rounds. AND it wasn't even a title fight lol because Josh vacated the belt before.

    Based on your logic every fighter who thinks he can get revenge in a rematch should get a rematch?

    Yeah thanks...**** boxing then. Waste of time. I want to see the best fighting the best not Whyte rematching Povetkin or Wallin until he beats them after losing the first fight.
  5. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Sep 15, 2009
    A rematch of an upset is always a good thing imo.
  6. f1ght3rz

    f1ght3rz Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jan 31, 2018
    I agree to a certain point. If Lara would have won the first Warrington fight via split decision after a 12 round war with both guys having their moments, i would 100% support a rematch because it was a great fight. But Warrington/Lara wasn't a great fight. It was a beatdown. Lara battered Josh across the ring and beat the living crap out of him. And you saw in the second figh that Josh just wasn't taking the Lara power too well early on again.

    In my opinion rematches should be made after a fight. There shouldn't be such thing like a rematch clause. If the fight was close and great for the fans...make a rematch. No problem with that. I'm looking forward to Chocolatito/Estrada 3. And i'd probably love to see a fourth one.
  7. Vegan Beast

    Vegan Beast Well-Known Member Full Member

    Aug 19, 2020
    Rematch clauses shouldn't be allowed unless it's for title fights IMO.

    Rematch clauses can save lesser fighters from keeping a hold of titles they may have won during a fluke night, and champions a chance to reclaim their titles.

    But apart from that, there shouldn't be rematch clauses.
  8. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Sep 15, 2009
    As a fan, I love upsets its why I watch boxing now. So seeing the fight again really interests me.

    If I cared more about the welfare of the boxers, I'd argue that the rematch clause should always give the victor the lions share of the purse.

    But then again, if they aren't happy they don't need to accept the fight in the first place.

    Knocking out Warrington was Laras lottery ticket. A rematch is an easy payday because he only has to replicate what he did.

    Same with Helenius and Kownacki. Povetkin vs Whyte didn't go that way obviously.

    I'd say the only rematch I ever truly felt was pointless, was Tarver vs Dawson.
  9. Olu G. Rotimi

    Olu G. Rotimi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    May 29, 2007
    We could see AJ knock out Usyk or beat him up bad to say Nomaschenko.