Are you OK with Jones getting an immediate rematch if he loses?

The problem the UFC has now, is that they've set the precedent with these rematches, and now they are obliged to do them practically any time the fight is close- or not (Barao/TJ).

I say you should have to take one fight at least, before the rematch.
 
Troublesome10 said:
The problem the UFC has now, is that they've set the precedent with these rematches, and now they are obliged to do them practically any time the fight is close- or not (Barao/TJ).

I say you should have to take one fight at least, before the rematch.
Click to expand...

They did book that rematch, barao messed up with the weight/passing out thing
 
SnowBlynd said:
It's only fair that he does. Would be hilarious if Cormier ducks him and denies him one. Only time I would support such behavior
Click to expand...

How is it fair? Does the loser of the SuperBowl get an immediate rematch with the SuperBowl winners?

MMA fans have been brainwashed to think rematches are normal. They aren't. Not even in boxing.

It's so stupid that everyone has to beat the champion twice in a row to be considered champ. Even Barao got an instant rematch after getting destroyed and knocked out.
 
All dominant champs should get immediate rematches. Jones has definitely been a dominant champ. When guys like Hendricks and Edgar get immediate rematches, that's what pisses me off.
 
Troublesome10 said:
The problem the UFC has now, is that they've set the precedent with these rematches, and now they are obliged to do them practically any time the fight is close- or not (Barao/TJ).

I say you should have to take one fight at least, before the rematch.
Click to expand...

This is smarter for the UFC as well. Fans are getting sick of all these immediate rematches.

You have to build up to a rematch. Fans will pay to see the champ in his "comeback fight" and if he wins impressively, fans will pay to see the rematch.
 
delbosque said:
All dominant champs should get immediate rematches. Jones has definitely been a dominant champ. When guys like Hendricks and Edgar get immediate rematches, that's what pisses me off.
Click to expand...

So you think you should have to beat the champion twice to win a belt?

Yeah, that's super fair.
 
Troublesome10 said:
The problem the UFC has now, is that they've set the precedent with these rematches, and now they are obliged to do them practically any time the fight is close- or not (Barao/TJ).

I say you should have to take one fight at least, before the rematch.
Click to expand...

Dana should hold a press conference stating that if a champ loses, he loses, and has to have a minimum of 1 fights to get back to the belt.
 
TdotK said:
Dana should hold a press conference stating that if a champ loses, he loses, and has to have a minimum of 1 fights to get back to the belt.
Click to expand...

i dont know about that...if a champ has more than 4 defense how can you not believe he could win a rematch
 
Barring a draw or very unusual circumstances, I always want 2 wins between title shots, even if you are the dethroned long-time champ. Rematches are way more interesting with some time between them.

Given how Jones squirmed out of the Machida rematch and tried to do the same with the Gusto rematch, I feel this is even more appropriate.
 
Kinda depends on the loss. Super close controversy or total BS stoppage sure. Legit got fucked up then no and give him someone 6-15 ranked.
 
Th3Sav4ge said:
They did book that rematch, barao messed up with the weight/passing out thing
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm just saying that the first fight wasn't close or controversial, so the rematch wasn't really warranted, and that UFC just automatically does rematches now.
 
Wwell guess it depends on how he lost.
 
I am definitely not a fan of the instant rematch. It isn't right that a guy has to beat a champ more than one time to be considered a champ.

C'mon at least one fight in between wouldn't hurt.
 
If he's finished than no rematch, if it's a unanimous 50-45 decision than no rematch, if it's a split decision or even three 48-47 DC judges scorecards than I'd be okay with an instant rematch.
 
nah. if he loses have him fight the winner of Gus/Rumble.
 
Yes but I would also be ok if Cormier ducked it for whatever reason.

Jones ducked Gus rematch only to fight dude who never beat top 10 opponent.
 
YouGoof said:
How is it fair? Does the loser of the SuperBowl get an immediate rematch with the SuperBowl winners?

MMA fans have been brainwashed to think rematches are normal. They aren't. Not even in boxing.

It's so stupid that everyone has to beat the champion twice in a row to be considered champ. Even Barao got an instant rematch after getting destroyed and knocked out.
Click to expand...
it's fair in the sense that dominant champions are accustomed to instant rematches in the ufc unless there was an unusual circumstance causing the loss. It would be fair for Jones to expect one. If he didn't get one it wouldn't bother me one bit however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,981
Messages
55,459,162
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top