When did it become a thing that a fighter has to beat another twice?

The economic model of boxing today lends to have more dubious decisions to get a return match. Personally I felt Kovalev clearly beat Ward to the point had he received the verdict I didn’t see the point for a rematch. Triple G was closer imo and a rematch was warranted. Same thing with Fury - I thought he schooled wilder. No point in rematch to his credit he’s the only one that did better the second time around.
Boxing doesn’t get the exposure it did in the past. So often when there is a big fight many casuals don’t really have an idea of how good a guy is - get a controversial ending - and branding is done everyone talking on social media about it everyone knows their names now and the rematch becomes even bigger. It’s all about the money.

 

Split decisions might have contributed to "outrage" from both the fighters and fans. I agree with Mike Tyson, I don't believe in split decisions. He said something to the effect of "it's a fight. How are you the better fighter because of ONE POINT...?".

Social media has given fighters a voice they never had before and can run their mouths to self promote and play victim like they got robbed.

Good point about Canelo and Golovkin. Some people just play favorites and some fighters are media darlings. I remember seeing some scathing comments on YouTube calling Juan Manuel Marquez a "coward" for retiring instead of giving Pacquiao a 5th fight.

 

I think there's two very different things being discussed here.

There's a big difference between demanding a rematch because a fight was close, or had some debate, and a fighter whoo's legitamately earned themselves a title shot not getting it because of an earlier loss.

 

Wills lost to Langford twice and made sure to beat him twenty times... been going on for a little while now.

 

History is filled with rematches, and many great ones.

Titles don't necessarily need to be on the line either.

Ali and Frazier were hellbent on proving who the better man was and had some real scraps.

Ali fought Norton multiple times despite him being awkward every time out.

Joe Louis rematched guys like Conn and Walcott who had given him loads of trouble.

Hagler got rematches against all the guys he didn't beat excepting SRL in his last fight.

Bowe and Holyfield went at it like cats and dogs.

Rematching might not be mandatory in most cases but fighting someone again that run you really close or may have been unlucky on the cards and settling any doubt is a solid plus in anyone's books. Look at say Ezzard Charles three defeats of Archie Moore. This series is one of the biggest stamps of greatness in history. If Charles beat him the once plenty would wonder what might happen if they fought again, maybe Archie had an off night etc etc etc but to beat him not twice but three times
thrusts Charles into the stratosphere. This is an extreme example of what can come out of multiple fights. Obviously we are talking about pinnacle level ATG's here.

 

It's a very petty criticism.

 

It's somewhat related to the other strange thing where winning a rematch 'proves' losing the first fight was a fluke.

In a case like Holmes-Witherspoon, where the decision was very very close, I see why a lack of a rematch could be brought up though. To be fair.

 

This is a tricky question. If the first fight is close, and the loser of the match remains highly ranked, a re-match should happen unless politics prevent it. If there was a bad decision, then a re-match is in order as well.

One thing I never liked about Lewis is he never gave one rematch to anyone who gave him a tough fight, but was lucky to get a re-match with Rhaman and McCall.

By contrast Holyfield would re-match anyone.