Do you like immediate rematches?

Also, five rounds of outworking an opponent leaves less questions to how a rematch would go when compared with a quick knockout.

This is sort of axiomatic around these parts, but I'm not so sure. Is the winner of a five round decision more likely to win a rematch than a fighter who won a fight by quick KO? Does anyone have any stats on that?
 
This is sort of axiomatic around these parts, but I'm not so sure. Is the winner of a five round decision more likely to win a rematch than a fighter who won a fight by quick KO? Does anyone have any stats on that?

Well, it's just my opinion. In the same vain, I think winning five round fights means more than winning 3 round fights because you're displaying a level of dominance for a longer period of time while avoiding danger for a longer period of time. Longer time in the octagon = more risk and more chances to fail, therefor overcoming that prolonged risk and prolonged likeliness to fail leaves a lot less doubt in my mind about how a rematch would go. It also just gives us far more data to draw from when comparing how the rematch would go in comparison to how the rematch of a 13 second fight might go.

I don't have stats on it though. It's going to be hard to find instant rematches for guys that were clearly beaten in a five round decision. I can't think of one to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Only for champions who did not get thoroughly dominated over a series of rounds (eg Woodley) or dominated until finished (eg Whitaker, Alvarez)....no matter how dominate the champs reign was. If Reyes finished Jones in round 3 I wouldn’t care about an immediate rematch for Jones. It would leave no doubt who the superior fighter is.

However if you get starch/obliterated in round 1, I can see the case for a rematch IF the champ had a dominant reign (Aldo, GSP) . There could still be doubt who the superior fighter is.
 
Last edited:
I hate them with a passion.
The only reason i think they are valid is in the following circumstances:
  • A draw (champion reigns, but challenger deserves another shot) Dont think this has ever happened.
  • A controversial stoppage on a grounds of technicality. NOT a doctor stoppage due to a filthy cut. Examples would include; equipment malfunction causes stoppage, accidental eyepoke or groin shot or cut from non strike, incorrect ref submission stoppage (saw false tap, thought fighter was unconscious but wasn't), early ref stoppage from strikes (needs to be clearly controversial after looking at post-fight video evidence and analysis).

Otherwise no way hose. They hold up divisions and make the UFC even less of a meritocracy than ever.
 
Nope. You need to build that up. Now seemingly Max vs gonna face Volk after getting beatup by him for 4 rounds. Zombie is waiting give him the title shot
 
It's fucking dumb. You cannot sit there and justify it what so ever.

Whoever wins first won for a reason or usually as it turns out years later a series of reasons. Having the fighter who just lost face the same opponent that beat them while having not had a chance to make corrections is stupid. Have at least one fight apart with different opponents so you have time to work it out. Hell sometimes it takes years to work it out.

See Joanna as a prime recent example. Rose even called it before their 2nd fight. Rose's coach isn't dumb. They took 8-13 months off every time it was needed and nobody gave a shit. Preserved her health/prime and cherry picked and manipulated as best they could. Hell you have had a gaggle of idiots including matchmakers suggesting she possibly facing Weili... off a KO loss to the girl Weili KOed. Styles make fights. That's the game.

Did nobody listen to GSP's JRE episode? He gave out sage advice on this topic.
what did GSP say then?
 
Not really. The whole point of the first fight is to show who the better fighter is; it doesn't make sense for a fight to end in a convincing KO just so the other fighter can get a rematch.

Like when DC fought Stipe the first time, I'm not sure if Stipe should've gotten an immediate rematch because he lost in a devastating and convincing fashion. This is coming from a huge Stipe fan btw
 
what did GSP say then?
You avoid bad matchups as they are bad for your career as you make your way to the title. For the vast majority of the roster the UFC is not there to help you. What they are good at is manipulating you into fights that is better for them. They tried that with GSP as well. You need to lookout for yourself because nobody will do it for you. Use your head and don't get suckered into the UFC's games.
 
Usually no, sometimes yes. For a rematch to interest me, it usually has to be a decision, pretty close, and against an established champion. Edgar-Penn 1 was a fight that needed a rematch. However, lot of "lucky" stuff can happen in MMA, look at Dos Santos-Cain 1 vs. the next two fights. Stipe-Cormier is an example of a fight where I though the champ deserved a rematch for longetivity, but I also understood why they didn't. Your champions are supposed to drive the marketing/action of your division. If you keep mucking up the works with rematches then your contenders get knocked off and your division can suddenly look very shallow.
 
No, UFC needs save those immediate rematches for razor thin decisions and let the division move on. If that's not the case just give your former champ a tune up fight against a gatekeeper that isn't close to a title shot so he/she can regain the mental edge that was lost during the championship fight

If the division doesn't moves on we will have contenders/prospects eliminating each other and the champ will have less fresh match ups if this happens.
 
Back
Top