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

[G-Mafia]

To me it does. If you lose a close decision and you come back and win a rematch by finishing your opponent, then ya, that negates the previous loss in my eyes.

 

[george dorn]

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.

i disagree. first and foremost, you should watch a fight yourself and make your own mind up. other people disagree with your assessment? well, let's go and find some reason in your point. listen to the opposing point's reasons. assess them. the truth is based on being open to reasonable change, not to be set in stone "just because".

on the other hand: rematches of really close fights are rarely close ones again; usually, one guy pulls the right conclusions and pulls out a clear decision at least. in fact, the only close rematch to a close first encounter i can think of is bendo-edgar II, but even there, i had edgar losing the first one by hendo stealing rounds and edgar winning the second rather decisively. but whatever.

bonus question(s):
while it's really clear who won both of their encounters, who would you bet on in mir-nog 3?
who's better, rampage or wanderlei?

 

[SeattleFightFan]

To me it does. If you lose a close decision and you come back and win a rematch by finishing your opponent, then ya, that negates the previous loss in my eyes.

if Machida KTFO's Rampage, it does not negate the fact that Machida either had a shit gameplan or couldn't get in on Rampage for 2 rounds (depending on how you look at it).

the fact that Chuck learned from his mistake and used lateral movement against Randy (II) does not negate the fact that he didn't use lateral movement the first time (I) and got TKFO'd for it.

it COULD mean those fighters did a better job of learning/growing/improving. it COULD mean a fighter got caught (if you hate that term, how about "let their guard down a second"). or it could mean that one fighter is aging better than another.

but "negate"? pshaw. when a fighter wins a rematch clearly it means something. but it doesn't mean everything.

 

[se7enthsign]

No, two different fights on two different nights.

Exactly. Avenging a loss does not erase it. No matter how the fights play out, Machida and Shogun are still 1-1, and if Cain were to win a close decision, JDS wouldn't get to keep the belt based on merits of their first fight.

I think that a lot of people treat MMA as if it's the 100m where the fastest guy pretty much always wins. To me, it's more like golf. Talent matters, but focus and mental toughness are more important. One mistake can kill you, even if you were doing great all the way up to that point. Granted, I am speaking only of elite level fighters. Sure, you can set up a mismatch and watch a guy get killed, no matter how focused he is, but the guys at the very top are close enough where talent alone won't win.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Exactly. Avenging a loss does not erase it. No matter how the fights play out, Machida and Shogun are still 1-1, and if Cain were to win a close decision, JDS wouldn't get to keep the belt based on merits of their first fight.

I think that a lot of people treat MMA as if it's the 100m where the fastest guy pretty much always wins. To me, it's more like golf. Talent matters, but focus and mental toughness are more important. One mistake can kill you, even if you were doing great all the way up to that point. Granted, I am speaking only of elite level fighters. Sure, you can set up a mismatch and watch a guy get killed, no matter how focused he is, but the guys at the very top are close enough where talent alone won't win.

golf is an interesting comparison for another reason. i've always heard that if someone comes in 2nd in every tourney they ever play in, they're the best golfer ever. likewise, all fighters lose. and it's the body of work that counts. GSP is still great regardless of the Serra I and Hughes I bouts. and GSP proved he is a better fighter, both overall and heads up. he's still been TKO'd & subbed. and that's ok.

i think it's the fans demanding perfection (and therefore with that all-or-nothing attitude soon cop a "he's GOAT"/"he sucks" mentality) that is, yet again, the real problem here.

 

[supernova]

No. Every fight is different and anything can happen.

 

[Free_MMAson]

Only if it answers some questions leaving no doubt

 

[princeofpownage]

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

I don't think the judges watch mma or have any idea of who they are judging.

 

[FLomega]

i disagree. first and foremost, you should watch a fight yourself and make your own mind up. other people disagree with your assessment? well, let's go and find some reason in your point. listen to the opposing point's reasons. assess them. the truth is based on being open to reasonable change, not to be set in stone "just because".

on the other hand: rematches of really close fights are rarely close ones again; usually, one guy pulls the right conclusions and pulls out a clear decision at least. in fact, the only close rematch to a close first encounter i can think of is bendo-edgar II, but even there, i had edgar losing the first one by hendo stealing rounds and edgar winning the second rather decisively. but whatever.

bonus question(s):
while it's really clear who won both of their encounters, who would you bet on in mir-nog 3?
who's better, rampage or wanderlei?

i'd bet on nog because he was spanking mir in the 2nd fight. still can't believe that.

but i'm speaking more on a decision level. clearly there was no argument who won the first 2 page/wand fights. but if they had both been close and/or controversial decisions, would the 3rd fight change your view on the first 2 fights?

 

[FLomega]

Only if it answers some questions leaving no doubt

and that's kinda the pointof the thread. did edgar/penn 2 change your view on edgar/penn 1 or would condit/diaz 2 change your view of the first fight if 1 of the guys got stopped or smashed

 

[LikeItIs]

Each fight is individual in my eyes. Nothing can be negated. Losses can be avenged but not erased.

 

[Lincoln Hawk]

it doesn't change the previous result, but it does prove who is the better fighter from that moment

 

[SeattleFightFan]

did edgar/penn 2 change your view on edgar/penn 1

nope. why would it? they were 2 totally different fights. and i still think anyone who gave Edgar r1 or r2 or Penn r4 or r5 is crazyinsane. r3 was as close as any round ever. but 49-46 or 50-45 is nuts. Edgar dominating the 2nd fight doesn't' change any of that.

would condit/diaz 2 change your view of the first fight if 1 of the guys got stopped or smashed

nope.

 

[VB MMA]

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?

Edagar clearly won the first fight. He dominated a "motivated" BJ the 2nd fight. He is just a better fighter. Same as GSP. He is clearly on a different level.

 

[Free_MMAson]

and that's kinda the pointof the thread. did edgar/penn 2 change your view on edgar/penn 1 or would condit/diaz 2 change your view of the first fight if 1 of the guys got stopped or smashed

If it showed that one has improved dramatically while the other has stagnated somewhat (or maybe passed their prime), and the fight was so decisive that I would be convinced if they fought a third time it would be no different. A good example of this was GSP vs Matt Hughes II and III, or GSP vs Penn II.

 

[Bollman]

It depends on how the fights go as far as shaping my opinion.

But, I will say that a split 1-1 between two fighters screams for a rubber match.

Just to add another set of fights to the thread: how about Bendo/Cerrone? First fight was awesome back and forth. Second one ended swiftly with a finish. I don't necessarily think Bendo is a much better fighter than Cerrone. It just went his way the second night.

 

[FLomega]

Edagar clearly won the first fight. He dominated a "motivated" BJ the 2nd fight. He is just a better fighter. Same as GSP. He is clearly on a different level.

poppy****

 

[FLomega]

nope. why would it? they were 2 totally different fights. and i still think anyone who gave Edgar r1 or r2 or Penn r4 or r5 is crazyinsane. r3 was as close as any round ever. but 49-46 or 50-45 is nuts. Edgar dominating the 2nd fight doesn't' change any of that.



nope.

i feel like it was almost the same fight with edgar doing everything a lot more effectively, and bj kinda giving up

 

[Anomonis]

Depends. If you mean literally, technically, correctly, then no of course not. If you mean in some weird revisionism trying to view your favourite fighter as all-powerful, sure, maybe.

 

[youandme]

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