Where do people get the idea that someone has to be 2-1 in fights against an opponent?

They could have another 10 fights and they will just be re runs of the second. As you say he maybe thought he had something to prove, he caught him and then rushed in to finish him off and got clipped himself and never recovered.

If he fights Ruiz like he did in the second fight he will win 100/100. There’s nothing Ruiz can physically do to stop him, his strengths just don’t add up to that type of fight and they never will.

 

A trilogy would obviously depend on the first 2. A win for each boxer, in competitive exciting, bouts would sell a 3rd.
Personally l can't see the point of another Fury v Wilder. Ruiz v AJ could be good, but that depends on what shape Ruiz is in.
People wouldn't want to see a repeat of the 2nd fight (although l kind of liked Joshua's 'plan B' performance).
People are already talking of a Fury, AJ trilogy. Far too soon.

 

Not a great example considering there are alot of people that believe Marquez deserved at least 1 decision win in their first 3 fights. This meant that some people saw them as being even going in to the 4th fight, and for those that didn't Manny won 2 incredibly close fights and had a draw before being slept, so it's probably a bit easier to argue that Marquez won their series than it is for you to argue the same about the fighter your post is obviously alluding to, the great excuse maker himself, Deontay Wilder.

Most people saw Fury get robbed of a points win against Wilder, before beating him senseless in the rematch. So I'd imagine if Wilder wins the 3rd, only the mentally ******ed fan boys (yourself included, of course) would walk away believing that Wilder won the trilogy.

 

Boy, way to come out of left field swinging with the insults. Christ.

I was talking about Manny-Marquez.

Cool your jets, new guy.

 

If you have a 70% chance of beating somebody your chance of beating them twice in a row is only 49%, that’s why you do it out of three.