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

[Otto!]

No, two different fights on two different nights.

This

 

[DarthChen731]

No.

 

[Cameron92107]

Diaz 1 2 5. Make the rematch

 

[sprucelees]

no but usually it would make the 2nd fight much more rewarding

 

[Bolshevik***]

hell no. not even close.

 

[Texan6533]

Nope, it would be a completely different fight. Fighter A could have been on that night beating fighter B, then fighter B could be on the next night beating fighter A... every single fight is a completely new fight with all new odds.

 

[AP_RESURRECTION]

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?

people do that of course, but not consciously where they can say they do

 

[BackyardBandit]

yes, but only a close decision

 

[SerrabyTKO]

No, because that's idiotic.

 

[Psychojoe86]

Not exactly, but look at shogun machida. After the second fight, shogun left with the much more impressive victory and so a rubber match wasn't immediately sought after.

 

[FLomega]

Not exactly, but look at shogun machida. After the second fight, shogun left with the much more impressive victory and so a rubber match wasn't immediately sought after.

exactly. most people thought shogun got robbed in the 1st decision. after he came back with the KO, no rematch was setup despite them being technically 1-1. i think the general concensus (dana included probably) is that they are 2-0 shogun

 

[axe wound]

No but it might fuel the fire for a trilogy. The UFC is not scared of putting those on whenever the opportunity presents itself

 

[moreorless87]

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

Although also on that fight BJ very nearly finished Hughes in the second fight, injuried himself and gassed.

 

[King in the North]

No but it might fuel the fire for a trilogy. The UFC is not scared of putting those on whenever the opportunity presents itself

 

[moreorless87]

Shogun/Machida was a little different from BJ/Edgar as well for me, the latter was just a very close fight that depended how you scored one close round, the former was a fucking robbery that should have been 50-45 or 49-46 Shogun.