What Fight still pisses you off, because there was never a REMATCH?

Collazo was screwed over twice, also Lewis vs Vitali.

 

Hagler Hearns. I may be in a minority here, but I think Tommy would've won a re-match a year later.

By the way, just finished reading the Hit Man by Brain and Damien Hughes. Good read.

 

Roy Jones vs Bernard Hopkins rematch back in their primes in 2002.

 

Lang vs Balboa III

It was one all and I think he could have really done a number on the stallion in the third!!!

 

Vitali-Lewis

 

i voted hagler vs hearns but i would of loved to of seen a rematch between salvador sanchez and azumah nelson about 18 months after thier first fight

 

Leonard-Hagler

 

Oscar-Tito for me.

Their fight was, rightly, hugely hyped - two great, undefeated champions meeting in their prime. The disappointing nature of the fight, the controversial decision and the popularity of both guys should have meant a re-match was inevitable.

Had it happened, I would have favoured Tito for a couple of reasons. The re-match would had to have happened above 147 and the extra weight would have benefited him. Plus, after throwing away the first fight and being widely ridiculed for "running", Oscar would have stood and fought with Tito more - I think this would also have been in Tito's favour.

There wasn't really a need for a re-match for Hagler-Hearns or Pea-Chavez imo. After the first round, Hagler just walked Tommy down and it seemed like it was only a matter of time before he won - which he did, convincingly. Despite the decision, everyone knows that Whitaker beat Chavez - it was so obvious that we didn't really need to see it again.

 

De La Hoya vs Trinidad really needed a rematch.

 

:goodThis.

 

Exactly why there was no need for Lewis vs Holyfield II.

 

Whitaker vs Chavez

Casamayor vs Freitas

Calzaghe vs Hopkins

 

Calzaghe-Hopkins. I felt Hopkins won by 1 point because of the knockdown and would want to have seen them fight in a rubber match.