Immediate rematches should be for inconclusive fights

yeah no shit, the problem is that these cucks will scream for a rematch when their favorite fighter loses, as long as they dont get finished you can always say "CLOSE FIGHT GUYS REMATCH" or "OMG ROBBERY REMATCH". 90% of the rematches the last 5 years were total bullshit and made 0 sense whats so ever, and the people that should have gotten rematches never did.
 
'Just run it back'

The mantra of people that have no concept of time and no concept of how inactive most top-ranked MMA fighters are. Rematches often take years to settle, can quickly turn into trilogies and drag on forever.

Figueiredo spent three years of his career fighting nobody but Moreno.

Stipe Miocic has spent the last seven years fighting only Ngannou and Cormier. Cain Velasquez spent 5 years fighting only JDS and Bigfoot.

Immediate rematches suck under almost any circumstance.
 
Only if people want to see them. If it was a boring fight, who cares? It was a close fight, some people think Sean won but the fight itself wasn't that interesting so I'd rather they moved on
 
mister piscadinha said:
and not gifts for popular long time champs

just rewatched sean vs dricus and the ufc should run It back
Click to expand...
100% agreed, completely on board, now just wait for Sean to say it.

Crickets.

You can scream run it back and rematch all you want all day long screaming it crying in the shower scream it at the mall, unless Sean types or says any of those words nothing's happening, man, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Even when the supposed popular fighter wins the title right back, which seems to be the rarer outcome, it still feels bad. The underdog shouldn't have to beat the champ twice to beat the champ, especially after a finish, looking at amanda nunez and usman
 
I wouldnt mind them giving it to the next in line. But just GIVING it to Izzy instead of Strickland,without him having to beat anyone else at MW would be fuckin ridiculous. I'd much rather Strickland get it than Izzy,as things currently are.
 
markys00 said:
I wouldn't mind, but not needed. Especially not to main event 300.
Click to expand...
Reckon they're setting up Izzy vs Dricus in South Africa, probably later the year, there's a lot of logistics behind that one but it's a good fight to hype up.
 
Personally I think every single fight should have an immediate rematch tbh.
 
first off you guys are wayyyy to bias and play favoritism way too often for me to take yall
seriously.
2nd ALJO should of gotten an immediate rematch just based off him doing DANA A SOLID
ALSO YOU UNGRATEFUL WEIRDOS SEEM FORGOT IZZY GAVE SEAN AN Opportunity.
had IZZY OR ALJO acted like divas
suga sean & strickland wouldnt of had a chance to become champs in 2023.
If im lying please tell me.

so under those circumstances YES A REMATCH IS Warranted.
A FAVOR FOR A FAVOR.

these are the rules
. If you are on GOAT STATUS like
Izzy Usman jones Nunes Khabib Volk etc etc and you held the belt for a while
then yes you should get a rematch or should be 1 fight from a rematch.
its only when
you keep losing to the same person back to back should you not be granted a title shot.
Booking izzy vs sean 2 or izzy for ddp is not BAD. whats bad would be booking connor vs islam
 
Last edited:
mister piscadinha said:
and not gifts for popular long time champs

just rewatched sean vs dricus and the ufc should run It back
Click to expand...

More importantly, they don't want the title to be passing around like a hot potato, which it has been now for a while. Strickland is not likely to be a dominant champion, and neither is DPP from the looks of it. Khamzat makes more sense at this juncture.
 
Was so weird hearing Dana say "Oh yes Sean won, for sure."

"Okay so immediate rematch?"

"Hahaha no guys, n-no they'll fight, one day, I don't know, maybe.. er.. "

Corporate definitely wants DDP vs Izzy in SA come hell or highwater.
 
mister piscadinha said:
and not gifts for popular long time champs

just rewatched sean vs dricus and the ufc should run It back
Click to expand...
No, if a champ just has 2-3 defense then yeah I agree with you.

But if a champ has activley reigned over a division for at least 5 years, then he deserves an immediate rematch, no matter how bad the loss is.

(fuck popularity and fuck the wwe business model they copied)

Think of it this way, if the short run champ in my first example above fights 3 more times he can earn another shot.
You think he would deserve another shot to regain his belt more than the ATG in the second example? Keep in mind when I say half a decade, I mean at least defending twice a year which is 10 wins in a row minimum.

The first example champ would have half the wins, lost earlier, shorter streak, and you are willing to reward him more? No way. Think it through.
 
WokeWarrior said:
its not that difficult
first off you guys are bias and play favoritism way too often for me to take any of yall
seriously. ALJO should of gotten an immediate rematch just based off him doing DANA A SOLID and
beating 3 former
champions.
ALSO YOU UNGRATEFUL WEIRDOS SEEM TO FORGET IZZY GAVE SEAN AN Opportunity.
same with aljo taking the suga tits fights.
had they acted like divas
suga sean and strickland wouldnt of been champs in 2023.
ARE WE IN AGREEMENT OF THAT.

ok so under those circumstances YES A REMATCH IS Warranted.
If You are champion and woke warrior is ranked
number 3-5 and im not facing top contenders, and YOU GIVE ME A SHOT FOR THE BELT, AND I PULL OFF THE UPSET,
BY HONOR I SHOULD GIVE YOU A REMATCH. thats the honorable thing to do. i get you dont understand that but thats
how i was raised.
these are the rules
ALSO. If you are on GOAT STATUS like
Izzy Usman jones Nunes Khabib Volk etc etc and you held the belt for a while
then yes you should get a rematch or should be 1 fight from a rematch. its only when
you keep losing to the same person back to back should you not be granted a title shot.
Booking izzy vs sean 2 or izzy for ddp is not BAD. whats bad would be booking connor vs islam
Click to expand...
stupid coloured text ,bell end commentary. Will not read
 
There have been fights that seemed clear where Dana says he disagreed with the judging. I know there are problems with scoring, but I'm against giving the UFC more leeway with running fights back because it'll feel like "let's just rerun it until we get the result we want."

I don't like instant rematches for long time champs either, but I can understand the situation. To me, it's not the "merit" that earns them the rematch, it's if they were so dominant that the only place to put them in rankings because they've do thoroughly taken out all the good contenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RonDante
Are official strike numbers made up?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
dog y
dog y
mister piscadinha
if mma had anything to do with merit, allen should be next in line
Replies
1
Views
280
theleerygoose
T

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,459
Messages
55,492,737
Members
174,789
Latest member
Jahmaltheknight

Share this page

Back
Top