Failed challengers should NOT be given instant rematches

[Magnum1978]

Melendez didn't get one, so I'm fine with Gus not getting one

 

[MrElbows]

(In my opinion) A lot of this Jones/Gustafsson stuff has been overhyped. I personally, don't believe a challenger baring an aweful controversial decision deserves an immediate rematch if he came up short on his first opportunity.

If the champion loses? Im ok with it. You got a legend... he loses the match (Anderson Silva) instant rematch. If you got a robbery decision? Fine.

I don't see the logic behind giving a guy a rematch who was given an opportunity and clearly came short. Reguardless to how close he came he still fell short.

I think Jones fighting Glover is the right decision. What say you?

Agreed

 

[Shogun Rising]

Sometimes rematches are warranted.

I don't see how some leather and tin change that.

And to be a champion, who most perceive to have lost, is not good for the sport. A lot of people thought Edgar won the Benson rematch, and consequently, Benson was disrespected for much of his reign.

 

[MarloStanfield]

tell that to Frankie

 

[MrElbows]

Chris Weidman, Josh Barnett and Chael Sonnen also thought Gustafsson won

 

[MrElbows]

Sometimes rematches are warranted.

I don't see how some leather and tin change that.

And to be a champion, who most perceive to have lost, is not good for the sport. A lot of people thought Edgar won the Benson rematch, and consequently, Benson was disrespected for much of his reign.

What do you mean "most"?

 

[Perrichet]

If the champion loses? Im ok with it. You got a legend... he loses the match (Anderson Silva) instant rematch. If you got a robbery decision? Fine.

So if a champion gets outclassed and brutally finished it's ok for him to get an immediate rematch.

If a challenger arguably got robbed of a decision against the champion he doesn't deserve an immediate rematch.

Great.

 

[Codpiece]

Yes indeed.

I remember watching a video where they interview Edgar, Pettis, Shogun, Hardy, Hendricks, Kampmann and a few others.

Edgar, Pettis, Shogun, Hendricks all agreed that Jones won. Hardy and Kampmann said Gus won, but Kampmann's reason was that he had to supported his fellow Scandinavian fighter. I think it's clear that fighter's tend to support fighters from the same country / region especially when they are the minority in the UFC.

Hendricks also explained that most of the controversy stemmed from the fact that Gus did much better than expected, which is true to a large extent.

Cool, you remember a vid...

There's a thread on here, you are free to look it up, which has the pro's giving their choice as to who won and some of their other comments. The ratio last I checked was about 2:1 in favour of Gus, and this wasn't a small sample, it was about 20 fighters.


Not that this in any way proves fighters are without bias, or even that a rematch is warranted. But this bullshit from Jones supporters grasping at straws trying to prove their guy won instead of being able to say 'watch the fight, the winner is clear' really ought to stop. This fight was incredibly close, hence the controversy. Either guy could have won, as TeamTanner said earlier, Gus needed tails, but the 50/50 coin came up heads.

Why can't either group of supporters admit this? Why can't Jones supporters admit that if Gus were the current champ he would probably have got the nod in the EXACT SAME FIGHT.

 

[DarthChen731]

Why are you bringing this up now and not two weeks ago? I thought that this was settled.

 

[dmc]

If Jones was not the champion, Gus wouldve got the decision...Jones got the nod due to him being the champ, period...

So yes, I feel Gus deserved a re match, because over 1/2 the people say he won anyways.

 

[TeamTanner]

That's why you shouldn't hide behind "who got their hand raised?" or "He got the W, all that matters."

I didn't say that it's all that matters but suggesting to someone that they should "admit defeat" when their fighter had actually won is just stupid. Winning by decision, no matter how wrongful of controversial the decision might be does not mean that you "lost". It just means that you may have been particularly fortunate to have won.

 

[TeamTanner]

If Jones was not the champion, Gus wouldve got the decision...Jones got the nod due to him being the champ, period...

Wow that sure didn't work for Penn against Edgar in their first match. To me and many knowledgeable people, Penn looked like he should have won even with out any extra help.