- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 9,578
Everyone complains about the vast # of rematches. I'd suggest that almost each one is - in varying degrees - acceptable, but the # of rematches in the same small time frame has soured everyone. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_small_decisions on how any one small decision can be perfectly fine, but in conjunction with a lot of other perfectly fine small decisions, lead to badness.
For example, I think BJ v Edgar II was fine. I was a close fight, and Maynard, frankly, had just recently disappointed everyone against Diaz (source for those who weren't paying attn a few years ago).
Whereas the 3rd LW rematch in a row was too damn much regardless of how controversial. even if Edgar and his fans thought it was unfair that his last 2 opponents got a 2nd chance.
and yes, i firmly believe that a rematch shouldn't be looked at as if it happened in a bubble; one must look at the whole picture, and if there are no other solid contenders an immediate rematch is more legit than if there are many contenders. all of these decisions are directly related to many other decisions, and one SHOULD take context into account. that is why i think Benson v Edgar II was ridiculous - being the 3rd LW title shot immed rematch in a row - and that the 3rd in a row caused most of the current backlash.
lastly, some think Weidman v A Silva is bs and others don't. this isn't a thread to debate that; there's plenty of those already.
So, of these fights, which ones are the most legit --> least legit, in your opinion? here's mine.
i'm probably missing a few if so please add them where you must.
just curious where people are in these things. cheers.
For example, I think BJ v Edgar II was fine. I was a close fight, and Maynard, frankly, had just recently disappointed everyone against Diaz (source for those who weren't paying attn a few years ago).
Whereas the 3rd LW rematch in a row was too damn much regardless of how controversial. even if Edgar and his fans thought it was unfair that his last 2 opponents got a 2nd chance.
and yes, i firmly believe that a rematch shouldn't be looked at as if it happened in a bubble; one must look at the whole picture, and if there are no other solid contenders an immediate rematch is more legit than if there are many contenders. all of these decisions are directly related to many other decisions, and one SHOULD take context into account. that is why i think Benson v Edgar II was ridiculous - being the 3rd LW title shot immed rematch in a row - and that the 3rd in a row caused most of the current backlash.
lastly, some think Weidman v A Silva is bs and others don't. this isn't a thread to debate that; there's plenty of those already.
So, of these fights, which ones are the most legit --> least legit, in your opinion? here's mine.
MOST LEGIT: Couture v Vitor III
Edgar v Maynard III
tie: Shogun v Machida, Edgar v BJ II
Randy v Rizzo
GSP v Hendricks
Silva v Weidman II
LEAST LEGIT: Edgar v Benson II
Edgar v Maynard III
tie: Shogun v Machida, Edgar v BJ II
Randy v Rizzo
GSP v Hendricks
Silva v Weidman II
LEAST LEGIT: Edgar v Benson II
i'm probably missing a few if so please add them where you must.
just curious where people are in these things. cheers.
Last edited: