• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Immediate rematches should be for inconclusive fights

No. Too many rematches.

We are heading towards best 2 out of 3 for title fights which are already only happening every ten months on avg in a division. We don't need more holdups and logjams.
 
This last title fight definitely deserves a rematch. Considering Sean shouldn't have lost in the first place, that fact there will be no rematch is very telling about the Ufc agenda
 
Skarsgard said:
I remember Anderson suggesting he wanted Chris to win by KO in that one. Even a decade later, it's hard to know if Anderson was baiting him for a counter or threw the fight.
Click to expand...
Lmao not THAT hard to know
 
When Paulo costa PullsOut, make Strickland vs Whittaker.
It would be a very technical match, both are extremely defensive responsibles and both lost to DDP (I think Sean won, but oficcialy he lost) .

The winner get the title shot and his rematch against Dricus.
 
Skarsgard said:
Stipe and Cain also spent considerable amounts of time out for injuries.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's the point. MMA fighters constantly get injuries and become inactive and that's why you don't do 5 fights in a row of them fighting the same 2 guys because fuck knows how long that's going to actually take.

Figgy was an active fighter before Moreno - he literally took the first fight within days of another. But when all was said and done it took a 3-year chunk of his career to fight the same guy.

This is the exact average timeline for average title fights by the way (8 months between each defence). So if a guy has 3 rematches like Figgy, you'd expect it to be 3 years before he fights someone new again.
 
Nah. A close fight only deserves an immediate rematch if there aren't any other compelling matchups in the division.
 
Skarsgard said:
I remember Anderson suggesting he wanted Chris to win by KO in that one. Even a decade later, it's hard to know if Anderson was baiting him for a counter or threw the fight.
Click to expand...
Come on. No one willingly lets someone knock them out.

It's hard to see but he def tried to counter Weidman in that last exchange but it missed. He still was able to dodge all the punches in that exchange until Weidman threw that crazy backhand.
 
VinceArch said:
It won FOTN. Boring fights don't win FOTN awards. Maybe stick to bum fights if you found that fight boring.
Click to expand...

It only won FOTN because it was a overall a boring card and the actual FOTN couldn't be awarded it because they don't give bonuses to guys who miss weight.

And they always have a heavy performance bonus bias towards top billed fights because they'd rather throw some extra crumbs they were going to spend anyway to one of their stars than to one of their prelim slaves.

It wasn't a bad fight. It wasn't particularly good though. Certainly not one to get emotional and defensive about.
 
HHJ said:
Come on. No one willingly lets someone knock them out.

It's hard to see but he def tried to counter Weidman in that last exchange but it missed. He still was able to dodge all the punches in that exchange until Weidman threw that crazy backhand.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I wholeheartedly buy into it. It's just in the "Yeah, that tracks" category for me.
 
This is literally the first time where the Champ is notably big draw (Strickland might honestly be the biggest name in the UFC), has a razor close SD that they lose their belt for, and not get an immediate rematch.

Even non-draws have gotten immediate rematches for way less. Hell Garbrandt got thrown back in there after getting KO'd in the 2nd. Izzy obv got his immediate rematch after getting finished by Poatan. Max got a rematch for getting beat 4-1 by Volk. Even Glover and Jiri got set to rematch, and neither of those guys even draw.

Is the UFC really that terrified of Strickland calling out neo-leftist propaganda that they don't want to give him a championship platform anymore? The guy sells fucking big and adds crazy name value to any card he's on.
 
Arguably at the top of the division, inconclusive results should be run back.

Now that COVID is done (+/-,) there’s no reason to draw out rematches/trilogies.
DPP/Strickland 2 should happen next; and relatively quickly.

If Sean can’t show up, then c’est la vie.
Go and get a quick (and impressive) win or two.
 
mister piscadinha said:
and not gifts for popular long time champs

just rewatched sean vs dricus and the ufc should run It back
Click to expand...

Rematches should happen for fights we want to see again and that's it, whether it's a long term champ or whatever.If the first one was a banger let's run it back.
 
WokeWarrior said:
first off you guys are wayyyy to bias and play favoritism way too often for me to take yall
seriously.
2nd ALJO should of gotten an immediate rematch just based off him doing DANA A SOLID
ALSO YOU UNGRATEFUL WEIRDOS SEEM FORGOT IZZY GAVE SEAN AN Opportunity.
had IZZY OR ALJO acted like divas
suga sean & strickland wouldnt of had a chance to become champs in 2023.
If im lying please tell me.

so under those circumstances YES A REMATCH IS Warranted.
A FAVOR FOR A FAVOR.

these are the rules
. If you are on GOAT STATUS like
Izzy Usman jones Nunes Khabib Volk etc etc and you held the belt for a while
then yes you should get a rematch or should be 1 fight from a rematch.
its only when
you keep losing to the same person back to back should you not be granted a title shot.
Booking izzy vs sean 2 or izzy for ddp is not BAD. whats bad would be booking connor vs islam
Click to expand...



lol at ajlo getting a rematch after being ktfo
didnt even read the rest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,032
Messages
58,409,345
Members
176,031
Latest member
Golden Rhino

Share this page

Back
Top