Ok--another post I'd like some serious opinion on--maybe it's just my perspective on things.... First--real quick about me--I'm in my mid 40's and I have been watching boxing since before I was a teenager. Really the only sport I follow now. I don't really watch the young up and coming fighters but when there is a card on HBO or Showtime thats normally what I'll be watching. So I don't understand these so called "revenge" fights or why they are such a big deal. I'll use LL as an example. I've read here that it's a big deal that LL got his revenge on Rahman and McCall but I look at it different. He is 1-1 against guys he is generally thought to be MUCH better than. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rahman KO'ed Lewis in 5, so LL gets revenge by getting a KO in 4? Big F'ing deal I say---you are 1-1 against the guy, end of story. McCall KO's LL in 2, but LL wins the "revenge" fight in 5? Against a McCall at that time had no business in the ring at all. Ok--LL won the fight, but he is still 1-1 no matter what. To me. it's not a big deal that LL won those revenge fights. He's 1-1 against guys he should have beat the first time but got KO'd. Same for Broner. He wants a "revenge" fight against a guy he was favored to beat. Big deal if he wins. He would then be 1-1. I'm sure there are tons of other examples out there. And this is not meant as a LL bash thread. I am a FIRM believer in TKO6. Thanks all
Are you suggesting that losses shouldn't be considered avenged until there is a decisive rubber-match (even if the rematch is decisive itself) and that champs who lose to unheralded opponents shouldn't be satisfied with anything short of winning a trilogy? :think I don't know that I agree but it's an interesting thought.
I agree with the thread starter. You can remacth the guy that beat you 100 times, but it will not change the fact that you lost in the first place. A L on the record is still a L even if you beat the same guy later.
howdy and welcome to the board :good 'revenge' matches give the victor piece of mind he may only be 1-1, but he holds the aces it's important when you put your head down on that pillow
I'm just bringing this out for some serious discussion/opinion on the matter-- SO how decisive does it have to be to really count? Lets use LL again: Rahman got the KO in 5, so LL comes back and gets the KO in 4--is that really that decisive? I think all would agree that LL is much higher ranked than Rahman but no matter what, he is still 1-1 against him. Same with McCall. McCall got the W with a KO in 2, but LL got the W in 5. Against a McCall that really had no business being in the ring to begin with. Was LL a better HW champ and will be regarded much higher in history? Of course. But no matter what he is still 1-1 against those guys and "avenging" those loses doesn't erase them. What I am trying to point out is how important is it really? At the end of the day, when boxing fans debate this kind of stuff 20-30 years down the road--will they call it "avenged" or call it 1-1?
This is sort of my point---you cant ignore the L to begin with no matter what. LL might be one of the top 10 greatest HW champs of all time, but you have 2 guys walking around that dropped him in 5 and 2. And both guys can say, "I'm 1-1 with one of the all time greats."
Thanks. I appreciate it. I agree that the guy that get his revenge may have piece of mind, and I understand that could be huge to a fighter. But explain the "he holds the aces part?"
I'm sorry. I mean no disrespect toward you but if you felt that way why then waste your time with making the post? I have read a ton of post here already that seem to follow the same lines: Mayweather/Pac are ducking...yawn. LL won TKO6/VK ran LL out of boxing..yawn... At least this can be an interesting subject to those that want to share their thoughtful opinion on it. Again, no disrespect to you, I see you have been here forever and I'm the new guy, so why give me a hard time about a post you think is a bad idea?
