The Obsession With Giving Title Fights Losers Rematches/Second Chances

You are making some good points. It is starting to get on my nerves now that you mention it. Thanks for this ending to a Monday.

Every time a fighter get a TKO or a submission win and climb to the fence gesturing to the belt, I renew my hope that such moron never ever get a title shot. Is a ridiculous gesture, IMO, and pisses me off as much as those ridiculous rematches.
 
Well, in this instance Figueiredo missed weight the first time, so he wasn’t champ despite beating Benavides in the first match.

Exactly. And having missed weight one could question whether that had given him an unfair advantage in the match, so redoing it wasn't egregious. Similarly how do you hate on a title fight ending in a draw (Figgy-Moreno) getting a redo? Except in the case of Woodley-Thompson 2, after the fact....
 
When Rose lost to Andrade they offered her an instant rematch as well but she turned it down. Cody losing to Dillashaw as well it does get tedious.Usman/Izzy/Nunes and Val will be given the same ordeal as well if and when they lose their belt.
 
A new standard has emerged in which once a fighter loses in a title bout they are then always a single win away from another title shot.

In many cases they are just given immediate rematches/second chances even if they were in uncompetitive fights and finished.

What ever happened to a fighter needing to string together a few wins before earning their way back to a title shot. This new standard is responsible for the lack of upward mobility for new UFC fighters who now need to wait for fighters to age out of the divisional rankings.

Occurring in 2020/2021:

Joseph Benavidez (Flyweight): Given an immediate rematch after being finished by Figgy in the second round. Proceeded to be finished in the first round of the rematch in what can only be described as a one sided beatdown

Brandon Moreno (Flyweight): Draws with Figgy due to a point deduction; rematch coming in June 2021

Max Holloway (Featherweight): Loses his FW title to Alexander Volkanovski via unanimous decision in 2019. Loses the rematch in 2020 via split decision. We are told a third fight is coming.

Jorge Masvidal (Welterweight): Given a title shot on short notice in June 2020, only manages to win a single round on one judges scorecard. Does not fight again until his rematch in April 2021 during which he is knocked out in the second round.

Dominick Reyes (Light Heavyweight): Has a very competitive title fight with Jon Jones in February 2020 which he loses via unanimous decision. Is immediately given another title shot in September 2020 for the vacant LHW belt and proceeds to be knocked out in the third round of an uncompetitive title fight.

Daniel Cormier (Heavyweight): Given an immediate rematch after being knocked out in his second title defense; loses the rematch via unanimous decision.

TBD:

Justin Gaethje (Lightweight): Has not fought since he was finished in the second round of his October 2020 title fight and appears to be holding out for another title shot or number one contenders bout.

Michael Chandler (Lightweight): Stated immediately after losing that he would be back within 12 months and UFC color commentator Jon Anik suggested today Chandler may deserve an immediate rematch.

Zhang Weili (Strawweight): Is calling for an immediate rematch at a 'neutral' site after being finished in the first round of her second title defense. Was the most inactive champion of 2020.

Stipe Miocic: Is apparently "beefing up" for another title shot since he believes he was knocked out in his very uncompetitive fight with Francis Ngannou because he came in too small.


nah fuck that. I like rematches. yes Weili needs a rematch
if they were good enough to get the fight they deserve a rematch.

get over it
 
In some cases there is no suitable other fights that makes sense. But I definitely get what the TS is saying and would tend to agree
 
Your examples aren't great, many of them involve vacant belts, draws or controversial endings.
Expediency of a rematch is also based on how much the UFC is behind the loser of a title fight. For ex, Cody got an immediate rematch despite losing in his first title defense. Weili might get a rematch because of her popularity in the important China market.
Andrade did not get a rematch. Title challengers who lose rarely get an immediate rematch unless there is controversy, a draw or a great competitive fight.

All that said, I sympathize your feeling, between Max and Volk, DC and Stipe, Joe B and Fig, Moreno and Fig and Usman and Masvidal, we all have rematch fatigue I think after the last year. The rematches mostly made sense to me, but it's still monotonous.

I don't know what you mean by the 'examples' not being great, it is a list, it wasn't written to persuade you it was written to prove a subjective point.

You don't seem to understand the point, at least as advertised, of a title fight is to determine the 'best ___weight in the world" not entertain you.

I don't think there is any circumstance in which someone who loses a title fight should be participating in the next one, it defeats the very purpose of the fight, since the individual who previously lost has already proven themselves not to be the best. Now that can change, hence a fighter earning their way back.

Lol Stipe could lose his next 5 fights and keep getting the next title shot

I am skeptical about Stipe being given an immediate title shot. Stipe never appeared to have a good relationship with the UFC and was not an active champion. He also has already been extended an immediate title shot, when he lost the belt the first time, a second one when you have guys like Curtis Blaydes floating around seems like it would create a lot of backlash.

Also, if Francis defends the belt one time is he going to now be eligible for these immediate rematches (which as we know aren't so immediate and usually occur half a year later); this would be a very bad precedent to set.

Its actually stipulated in some contracts

Rematch clause

Look into it..

You have access to UFC contracts and know what is in them?

You can't throw Chandler and Weili's name into the pot just because they are hoping for another shot, it's not the same as getting the title shot. Titles are big business in the UFC, most of the time they are what make up their PPV's and unlike the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB yes.. MMA has the luxury of setting up who it wants in its championship fight. I believe what could fix this so called immediate rematch problem is by making mandatory challengers where you either vacate the belt or fight the guy/girl that earned their own right at a title shot. This is however an unpredictable sport, and I imagine the scheduling is very hard to setup right since any small thing can go wrong and screw everything up, which is why this differs from other sports, it takes months to prepare and get ready and if a challenger goes down all hell breaks loose. This is also the way it has been for a long time, so it's not like this is some kind of new trend. Wonderboy got an immediate rematch after his draw against Woodley, but Woodley.. he didn't get no immediate rematch, so it's not like it always happens.

I do believe if a champion has been dominant enough for a long time they warrant the immediate rematch, for instance if schevenko or Nunes goes down... guess what.. they'll be getting an immediate rematch, Ronda Rousey was the dominant woman in WMMA for a long time, she got knocked out.. but when she was ready boom immediate title shot. As much as you would like fighters to earn their way back to the top, one thing that you truly have to consider, is this sport doesn't have a lot of two times or multi champions, yes they do exist, but it's very very hard once a fighter loses their belt to even earn it back when they fall off the high horse, so it also make sense for the UFC to keep their top tier most popular fighters relevant for their own financial reasons. Cody Garbrandt got a rematch as well, but then someone like Rose she didn't and earned her way back up, and now is the only two time champion for WMMA.

I see your point but I definitely don't think that it should just be the normal thing to make all champions who lose their belt have to string along 3 top 5 wins in order to earn their title shot back. At the same time I do think that it maybe a large reason why it's hard for new fighters to crack into the top 15 and become champion, thats why you get guys like Oliveira who finally get a shot at a belt after 28 matches... so something needs to be more structured and change, but there's no easy solution.

I put their (Chandler/Weili) names under the TBD column because either their team (Weili) or UFC broadcasters (Chandler) have publicly talked about it.

I don't believe either of them is going to get one, though I do think Justin Gaethje might if Connor defeats Dustin; and Gaethje obviously does not deserve one after being finished in the second round.

Ideally if a challenger draws they should not given an immediate rematch, but a number one contenders bout to determine the next challenger.

Yes, the current system makes it nearly impossible for guys like Oliveira to move upward in their division because once a fighter reaches the top 10 they need to either retire or be cut from the promotion to lose their ranking.

Look at Leonardo Santos, who won TUF Brazil and had won six straight fights and was fighting a guy during Fight Island I that was making his debut. The Lightweight division suffers the worst from this.

It's bs. I was arguing with someone on reddit, I got downvoted to death at first because I suggested Stipe should go back to the end of the line, he doesn't deserve a rematch because he got shUt out. The replies why he deserved a rematch were illogical. He deserves the rematch because he's Stipe, best UFC hw of all time.

Believeing the ufc PR bullshit I see. First off, past accolades don't mean that much. Once you lose, your timer restarts. It is what it is.

Stipe was 1-1 in title defenses. 2-1 total when he regained the title from DC.

He shouldn't get an immediate rematch off one successful title defense lol. You should not be eligible to get an immediate title if you got shut out for a fight. No fluke, just shut out. Trilogies aren't needed all the damn time. We don't need a rubber match.

Stipe does not deserve another title fight. I am not convinced he could beat anyone in the top 5 at HW at the moment. And for his own health he would be very stupid not to retire.

I dont expect we will ever see him fight again, because it would be irrational for both himself and the UFC, but time will tell.

Well, in this instance Figueiredo missed weight the first time, so he wasn’t champ despite beating Benavides in the first match.

When you are finished as badly as Joe was, you don't belong in a title fight immediately after said performance.

He was put in one though and it ended even worse than the first one did.

Benavidez is probably the best example for why a fighter, regardless of whether they are champion or a challenger, should need to earn their way back instead of an immediate rematch.
 
I agree!

I think one reason to this is that people who make the rankings don't understand what the rankings are for. The rankings shouldn't be about who you think is the #1 or #2 fighter in each weight class. The rankings should be about who is the #1 and #2 most deserving of a title shot. Someone who just lost to a champ should never be #1 unless there's some huge controversy.
 
I don't know what you mean by the 'examples' not being great, it is a list, it wasn't written to persuade you it was written to prove a subjective point.

You don't seem to understand the point, at least as advertised, of a title fight is to determine the 'best ___weight in the world" not entertain you.

I don't think there is any circumstance in which someone who loses a title fight should be participating in the next one, it defeats the very purpose of the fight, since the individual who previously lost has already proven themselves not to be the best. Now that can change, hence a fighter earning their way back.



I am skeptical about Stipe being given an immediate title shot. Stipe never appeared to have a good relationship with the UFC and was not an active champion. He also has already been extended an immediate title shot, when he lost the belt the first time, a second one when you have guys like Curtis Blaydes floating around seems like it would create a lot of backlash.

Also, if Francis defends the belt one time is he going to now be eligible for these immediate rematches (which as we know aren't so immediate and usually occur half a year later); this would be a very bad precedent to set.



You have access to UFC contracts and know what is in them?



I put their (Chandler/Weili) names under the TBD column because either their team (Weili) or UFC broadcasters (Chandler) have publicly talked about it.

I don't believe either of them is going to get one, though I do think Justin Gaethje might if Connor defeats Dustin; and Gaethje obviously does not deserve one after being finished in the second round.

Ideally if a challenger draws they should not given an immediate rematch, but a number one contenders bout to determine the next challenger.

Yes, the current system makes it nearly impossible for guys like Oliveira to move upward in their division because once a fighter reaches the top 10 they need to either retire or be cut from the promotion to lose their ranking.

Look at Leonardo Santos, who won TUF Brazil and had won six straight fights and was fighting a guy during Fight Island I that was making his debut. The Lightweight division suffers the worst from this.



Stipe does not deserve another title fight. I am not convinced he could beat anyone in the top 5 at HW at the moment. And for his own health he would be very stupid not to retire.

I dont expect we will ever see him fight again, because it would be irrational for both himself and the UFC, but time will tell.



When you are finished as badly as Joe was, you don't belong in a title fight immediately after said performance.

He was put in one though and it ended even worse than the first one did.

Benavidez is probably the best example for why a fighter, regardless of whether they are champion or a challenger, should need to earn their way back instead of an immediate rematch.
Look at the flyweight division which already has been lacking star power until Davidson became the king, then a fight of the year happens ends in a draw.. like if a draw ever deserved an immediate rematch it's that type of fight, although if history is anything like the past usually the rematch is never like the first fight ala Woodley vs Wonderboy 2, they bang out in the first fight and go into the 2nd fight gun shy.

Look I do see your point and it does grow into frustrating issues at times, but it doesn't always work out the way you are saying. Whittaker didn't get an immediate title shot rematch partly because he didn't want the rematch and yes he has earned his way back and should get a title shot again, but it's not like it's literally every single time, it's usually when there aren't any big names or the division is lacking which happens multiple periods through UFC and MMA's history. So again I do see the point that you are trying to make, but I also disagree with the point as a whole, if your only main objection to it is preventing new fighters from getting their own title shot, than the problem should be with the way fighters are ranked, and how they become top contenders, not with the immediate title rematches themselves. I couldn't understand how woodley lost 3 straight, still got another top 10 fighter got beat up a 4th time and now is no longer signed by the UFC, Tony Ferguson is another guy.. great fighter, great career but his last 3 fights, he just hasn't fought like a top 15 fighter. He doesn't have it in him anymore, so IMO what holds new fighters from coming up the most is the way young fighters on a hot streak are able to crack into the top 15 rankings and eventually getting top contender fights to earn the title shot themselves.... not the dominant champion getting an immediate rematch after reigning king and losing the title.

Like if Usman or Khabib had lost.. would it be a shock if they got an immediate title shot? come on now.. of course it wouldn't especially in this game where anything can happen on any given night.
 
It has changed. Before they gave big names the shots after a loss or 1 win. Guys like JDS, Cain, Couture. Not missing the trilogy fight has for long been a big thing.

Currently it's a scheduling thing. So they give it to everyone, not just big names. They have way more cards and every card needs basically a title fight headliner. That is their model. To achieve that they sacrifice proving you're the best by handing out title shots to fill their yearly cards with title fights. I don't like it. The belt is supposed to represent the best, not put ratings over that.
 
It's super annoying.

Apart from a draw or some BS like Yan vs Aljo, there should never be an immediate rematch.
 
LOL This ain't boxing. UFC controls the matchmaking.

I don't know what you mean by the 'examples' not being great, it is a list, it wasn't written to persuade you it was written to prove a subjective point.

You don't seem to understand the point, at least as advertised, of a title fight is to determine the 'best ___weight in the world" not entertain you.

I don't think there is any circumstance in which someone who loses a title fight should be participating in the next one, it defeats the very purpose of the fight, since the individual who previously lost has already proven themselves not to be the best. Now that can change, hence a fighter earning their way back.



I am skeptical about Stipe being given an immediate title shot. Stipe never appeared to have a good relationship with the UFC and was not an active champion. He also has already been extended an immediate title shot, when he lost the belt the first time, a second one when you have guys like Curtis Blaydes floating around seems like it would create a lot of backlash.

Also, if Francis defends the belt one time is he going to now be eligible for these immediate rematches (which as we know aren't so immediate and usually occur half a year later); this would be a very bad precedent to set.



You have access to UFC contracts and know what is in them?



I put their (Chandler/Weili) names under the TBD column because either their team (Weili) or UFC broadcasters (Chandler) have publicly talked about it.

I don't believe either of them is going to get one, though I do think Justin Gaethje might if Connor defeats Dustin; and Gaethje obviously does not deserve one after being finished in the second round.

Ideally if a challenger draws they should not given an immediate rematch, but a number one contenders bout to determine the next challenger.

Yes, the current system makes it nearly impossible for guys like Oliveira to move upward in their division because once a fighter reaches the top 10 they need to either retire or be cut from the promotion to lose their ranking.

Look at Leonardo Santos, who won TUF Brazil and had won six straight fights and was fighting a guy during Fight Island I that was making his debut. The Lightweight division suffers the worst from this.



Stipe does not deserve another title fight. I am not convinced he could beat anyone in the top 5 at HW at the moment. And for his own health he would be very stupid not to retire.

I dont expect we will ever see him fight again, because it would be irrational for both himself and the UFC, but time will tell.



When you are finished as badly as Joe was, you don't belong in a title fight immediately after said performance.

He was put in one though and it ended even worse than the first one did.

Benavidez is probably the best example for why a fighter, regardless of whether they are champion or a challenger, should need to earn their way back instead of an immediate rematch.
Lmao shertards gonna shertard.

Why do you think Weidman had to fight Silva twice. Why is this such a common thing...

Contract negotiations how do they work???

<{1-1}>

Dummies. Lol
 
Two of the big issues tend to be.....

1.The UFC's preferred fighter lost and they want to give them the chance of getting their win back.

2.The UFC's preferred fighter won in such a fashion they think they'd also win the rematch.

Favoritism can play a massive part in careers that way, no rematch for Aldo against Conor but a rematch for Conor against Nate.
 
nah fuck that. I like rematches. yes Weili needs a rematch
if they were good enough to get the fight they deserve a rematch.

get over it
I gotta assume you're trolling or that is the dumbest post I've seen on the boards in quite a while.
 
I agree with you that fighters need to earn their shot again, though on the list above, the only truly egregious one is Jorge getting an immediate rematch after losing a lopsided first fight.

- Benevidez got eye poked and knocked out in the first fight, so there were some controversy to the finish

- Moreno earned that title rematch because of a very competitive draw

- Holloway and Cormier were both established champions. Max had a close fight, and in Cormier's case, a trilogy where it's 1-1 is worth the matchmaking

- Reyes is a little iffy, but a lot of people thought he beat Jones, and there really weren't a lot of suitable fighters at that time to fight for the title

Don't think Weili and Chandler should get another immediate title shot. Their divisions are full of other interesting challengers.

I pretty much agree with this. These fights in general all have reasons for rematches. There is also a money side and in some of the cases it was simply the best fight to make for $$$.

The only thing I disagree with is Jorge, I imagine this was part of the deal for taking the short notice fight to help UFC. It is also a division where who can beat usman isn't that clear atm, he really looks in a different class currently.
 
ya it's stupid, it's why I stopped watching for a few years, but covid got me back into it since it was the first sport back, I only like auto rematches if it's a draw (figgy vs moreno), bs decision (machida vs shogun) or if a long time champ lost (silva vs weidman) or controversial ending (yan vs sterling)
 
Tell me why?otherwise you’re just talking out your ASS
One simple example; was Masvidal even remotely deserving of a rematch with Usman? What had he done since the Usman fight to earn or deserve a rematch? To suggest because he got the fight in the first place he's somehow deserving of a rematch is fucking dumb. Hence I assumed you were trolling.
 
One simple example; was Masvidal even remotely deserving of a rematch with Usman? What had he done since the Usman fight to earn or deserve a rematch? To suggest because he got the fight in the first place he's somehow deserving of a rematch is fucking dumb. Hence I assumed you were trolling.
What does that even mean? The rematch was perfect. Guys made a lot of money. Was marketed extremely well a did better than the first fight
 
What ever happened to a fighter needing to string together a few wins before earning their way back to a title shot. This new standard is responsible for the lack of upward mobility for new UFC fighters who now need to wait for fighters to age out of the divisional rankings.

I've been watching MMA since the early 90's and needing a few wins before earning a title has never once been a thing. Do you mean the early tournaments? That format became obsolete almost immediately as soon as they realized they could just make a "superfight" and not rely on fighters having to win other fighters to make the match ups they wanted.
 
Back
Top