do you think a rematch win negates a previous close decision?

[FLomega]

if a fighter loses or wins a close decision, then comes back and wins a rematch, do you look at the previous fight as a win?

example bj vs. edgar/gsp. many felt like he won those first fights. i thought he def won the first edgar fight. in the 2nd fights he got beat basically from bell to bell. many use that as fuel to say he lost those first 2 fights. would people think differently if he would have won the rematches?

many including me felt like nick should have won the condit decision. if he comes back and fights and beats condit decisively, would you lookk at the first fight differently?

there's a few other similar cases as well such as shogun/machida, etc.

what's your take on this?

 

[TFanatic]

No, two different fights on two different nights.

 

[Da Speeit]

Not at all, but i feel a lot of Sherdoggers do.

Each fight is different and has different versions of each fighter.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Well, it always seems to be about what happens most recently. Not my opinion, but that's how the rankings are done and that's how most people think.

A football team is 13-0, then loses a game to a team that 7-6, a division rival they had already beaten once during the season. The now 13-1 team is still better than the 8-6 team.
But not in MMA. The team that won the most recent game, despite it's long term record, would now become #1 based on the recent win.

 

[Cutty]

No, two different fights on two different nights.

/thread

 

[SuperLuigi]

I personally dont, but ppl with bad memories probably change their opinions on pass fights based on the influence of more recent ones.

I also wonder if judges judging a rematch are affected by the outcome of the previous fight, consciously or subconsciously.

 

[FLomega]

it's kinda how people view a trilogy. bj lost the rematch vs. hughes but came back and finished him quickly in the 3rd match. it's almost to decide who is the better fighter once and for all. like when rampage came to the ufc and dismissed chuck from his title. many felt even though rampage had a win over him, chuck was too good and the first fight was a fluke or something

 

[FLomega]

I personally dont, but ppl with bad memories probably change their opinions on pass fights based on the influence of more recent ones.

I also wonder if judges judging a rematch are affected by the outcome of the previous fight, consciously or subconsciously.

that's actually a great point. like how sometimes a guy will win a robbery decision then lose a robbery decision in his next fight

 

[TheRassler]

I consider all decisions to be Draw's, so no, the previous win is neither a win or loss.

 

[TFanatic]

I consider all decisions to be Draw's, so no, the previous win is neither a win or loss.

Lol, that's a bit harsh. I actually see split decisions as a draw.

 

[samb867]

Completely separate fight.

Look at McCall/Johnson. First fight was very close, arguably should've gone McCall's way, was ruled a draw, but Johnson definitively won the second. Even though these fights were back-to-back you couldn't convince me McCall lost the first fight.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

this whole conversation centers around the word "negate". sorry to get semantic, but what does that mean?

are you asking is the fighters who won the 2nd fight "better"? the answer is no, not necessarily. should we ignore the first result? no

but does it give more info than if they'd only won 1 fight? yes.

folks need to learn to take ALL info into account.

is Shogun "better" than Machida? i'll just leave that one open ended for you all to enjoy.

 

[awymore]

I consider all decisions to be Draw's, so no, the previous win is neither a win or loss.

I wouldn't say all decisions, but if it is close, then just have a rematch and let that determine who the better fighter is. A good example of this would be Shogun and Machida. Does anybody really consider them 1-1 with a need for a third?

 

[FLomega]

this whole conversation centers around the word "negate". sorry to get semantic, but what does that mean?

are you asking is the fighters who won the 2nd fight "better"? the answer is no, not necessarily. should we ignore the first result? no

but does it give more info than if they'd only won 1 fight? yes.

folks need to learn to take ALL info into account.

is Shogun "better" than Machida? i'll just leave that one open ended for you all to enjoy.

it's almost a who's the better fighter scenario, yes. basically, if there's an argument in the original fight for who won, does the second fight kill the argument altogether. such as in the examples i mentioned. most would agree that the diaz/condit, bj/edgar 1, shogun/machida 1 fights were close and controversial. does the rematch change your view on the first fight or kill the argument of who should have won it.

i see people saying "see, edgar won the first fight and came back and finished the job in the 2nd." or "obviously shogun was robbed cuz he came back and KOd machida in the rematch"

 

[TheRassler]

I wouldn't say all decisions, but if it is close, then just have a rematch and let that determine who the better fighter is. A good example of this would be Shogun and Machida. Does anybody really consider them 1-1 with a need for a third?

I sorta agree with you, if the first fight is a close decision or a controversial decision...then the rematch should determine who won both fights, regardless of who the winner was in the first fight. BUT, if the rematch is also a close decision, then both fights never happened or should really be Draw's.

 

[Kneeuinthenutz]

what happened happened.

One thing I think it does indicate is that one person has the better set of skills to overcome what the other brings to the table.

Many need to understand that in this sport with so many talented fighters? One fight simply isn't going to tell the story about how good either fighter truly is or how their skills stack up against each other. There are so many different ways for it to unfold.

Take BJ vs Uno...

Part one ends in a matter of seconds...One could say BJ is just infinitely more talented than Uno....Not a very informed or thought out opinion but none the less, it was pretty much a large majority thought at the time.

They fight a seconds time? Epic 5 rounds affair, that showed they were much closer in talent than anyone has previously thought.

 

[Codpiece]

No, it doesn't 'negate' a close loss, but there's a lot to be said for emphatically avenging a defeat.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

it's almost a who's the better fighter scenario, yes. basically, if there's an argument in the original fight for who won, does the second fight kill the argument altogether. such as in the examples i mentioned. most would agree that the diaz/condit, bj/edgar 1, shogun/machida 1 fights were close and controversial. does the rematch change your view on the first fight or kill the argument of who should have won it.

i see people saying "see, edgar won the first fight and came back and finished the job in the 2nd." or "obviously shogun was robbed cuz he came back and KOd machida in the rematch"

ya, they shouldn't' jump to those conclusions.

what about 2 against 1? is Rampage a "better" fighter?

the problem lies in trying to simplify everything down to a 1 word, all encompassing answer. the sport is too complicated to do that, and yet fans keep trying.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

I sorta agree with you, if the first fight is a close decision or a controversial decision...then the rematch should determine who won both fights, regardless of who the winner was in the first fight. BUT, if the rematch is also a close decision, then both fights never happened or should really be Draw's.

your viewpoints never cease to amaze me.

 

[TheRassler]

your viewpoints never cease to amaze me.

damn, you quoted me while I was still editing.

oh well, fuck it. I'll leave it as that.