"Why should I rematch him?" Teofimo Lopez says he will leave Loma behind to fight his "leftovers”

Because you lost the last half of the fight and because he'd probably win the rematch? Or because two victories over a great fighter like Lomachenko is twice as good as one and the stuff of legends? Money? To prove that it wasn't a fluke or that you don't run from challenges?

 

Can't stand this ass clown I saw the other day he was saying he wanted to fight Josh Taylor at a catch weight LOL.
I still believe that my man Kambosos will beat the brakes off him if he ever gets him in the ring.

 

This should be criminal, loma deserves a rematch more than any of these rematches we always get in boxing.

 

Quack quack what a *****. Just more fodder that demonstrates the Lopez family to be less than professional, in fact a bit repulsive.

Loma made the first fight happen. Lopez owes him a rematch.

 

A certain answer is a convincing if not overwhelming win; or with rematches in mind: the best win out of two, two wins out of three etc.

This was nothing of the sort. He took about half the rounds. A draw isn't really generous, it's about as fair as one round to Lopez, and much fairer than any other scorecard. It looked as though the main reason Lopez won the first half was through Loma's inactivity, which would be explained by the injury, 'excuses' or not. It's also hard to deny that he wasn't performing as usual in that fight.

This debate aside, the easiest 'test' for the conviction of Lopez's win is the answer to the question, 'who would win in the rematch?', and the fact that most people put Loma as the favourite, or the fight at 50:50, tells you just how convincing the win was.

I don't get why you're debating the term 'duck', do you really think that most people understand this as a predominantly legal concept? A duck means to avoid fighting someone that you're expected to fight. Most people expect and want a rematch, Loma wants a rematch, Loma's reputation warrants a rematch, the inconclusiveness of the last fight warrants a rematch. If he refuses it, especially after giving the opposite impression on several occasions - it's a duck.

 

Slimy IMO, I think when you fight a champion there is an expectation if it's a close enough fight that a rematch will be given. Sort of like an unwritten rule.

This is why rematch clauses can be a good thing. Otherwise MFs like this will just run off.

 

Sure, but you're misunderstanding my point. The point is that people are using the non-inclusion of the rematch clause as though it's a reflection of Loma's very thought process and personality, when it wasn't him that drafted the contract, negotiated it, or perhaps even played a part in it.

Overall though, it's just a strange perspective.

Apparently including a rematch clause means you're sh*t scared of losing and need the safety net; not including such a clause though apparently shows the personal spite a fighter has to the other, conclusive that they would pre-emptively stymie the other fighter's grounds for a rematch if the fight was close.

The reasonable assessment is that it's just a contract and it doesn't tell you anything about what Loma may or may not have done if Lopez was in his shoes.

 

"You disrespected me so now I'm not going to fight you!"

- A guy who fights for a living.

 

A draw is generous because he lost the first 6 clearly, the 7th was close though i scored it for Loma and pretty much everybody including myself gave Lopez the 12th. 116-112 and 115-113 in favor of Lopez were the relms of most peoples cards and the win itself shouldn't be controversial besides his "shoulder"

Based on that logic Holyfields win over Mike Tyson wasn't that convincing considering Mike Tyson opened up as the favorite for their rematch. The reality is Lopez outboxed Loma in the early and mid rounds because Lomachenko didn't want to risk getting KO'd early like Commie did and wanted to make Lopez gas out. Lomachenko turned up the pace later and controlled the fight. Lopez adjusted, came back in the 12th, hurt Lomachenko, outlanded him and secured his victory. That was convincing enough for me. Had Lomachenko completely dominated all 6 of rounds 7-12 then I'd agree, but he didn't. The fights go 12 and Loma came though second best in the last round

"Loma's reputation warrents a rematch" not to me. Lomachenko was never some invincible fighter who had an off night. Loma shut down his angles and kept him honest even though I'd favor Lomachenko in the rematch. But I'm not pushing it. Lopez won. If he wants to move on and fight a higher level of competition like Josh Taylor then i think he should go for it. Had Lopez decided to fight no hopers then I'd be pushing for a rematch with Loma but that's not his plan.

He beat Lomachenko fair and square. End of

 

BS, A rematch clause is negotiated. If Lopez lost, he could have used the clause to get the rematch. The clause isn't just for someone scared to lose. Generally a rematch clause is used in championship bouts. It keeps guys honest. A guarantee that says I gave you a shot at my belt, now give me a chance to get it back. Loma and or his team did not want to give that to Lopez because he obviously believed he could beat Lopez with one arm. Which in hindsight makes Loma look like a fool.

 

Lopez has been SOOOOO busy lately, make beaucoup $$$$ in his fights, why should he rematch Loma and make the
most money he's ever earned? I mean, why bother?

 

It's funny isn't. Boxing fans complain when name boxers put automatic rematch clauses into contracts:

Ruiz v Joshua 2
Fury v Wilder 3
Povetkin v Whyte 2
Usyk v Joshua 2

Now we have a champion that doesn't do that, and it's haha, Lomachenko you fool, you didn't put in a rematch clause!

HAVE SOME STANDARDS FFS