is anyone else tired of rematch on top of rematch on top of... - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

duke09 · 10-15-2006, 01:41 PM

as much "fun" as it may be to fuel the flames of rivalvries, i fear that the recent trend of soooo may rematches could really stagnate the sport i love so much. at the end of the day, we are, at least i thought, supposed to see the world's best display their skills and compete for supremacy, not settle scores and have "do-overs" every time somebody starts pouting about their performance. i remeber being in grade school where little thing was reason enough for a do-over. if you claim to be a professional, and you claim to be fighter, then do it, i am tired of all this wimpering about bad stoppages and injuries and everything else. if you lost a fight, its becuase the other guy won, deal with it and move on. you didnt see griffen pout when he was robbed, he went out, he fought, he moved on.
i think that one of the reasons for this recent rend is the ufc's inability to a) recruit decent talent, or b) to fully maximise the talent that they have.
i think they need a new formula!!
also, why are there so many contracts given to tuffers who lose?
the WINNER gets a contract, so why is herman out there getting BEAT DOWN when he couldnt even get past grove, yet makes 6 figures a year. and why is bonnar out there fighting and failing drug tests when he didnt win the final fight???
every sport needs a level of predicyablity and accounability to be successful, or at least taken seriuously, and the ufc lacks both of these in a very real sense.

Grave · 10-15-2006, 01:50 PM

*waits for him to mention Pride....you just know he will eventually*

duke09 · 10-15-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grave

*waits for him to mention Pride....you just know he will eventually*

huh? i am not sure i understand. if you meant that i will mention pride sooner or later, you are absolutely correct. to only examine the north american version of mma is to negate a huge segment of this grreat sport. so long as both the ufc and pride are putting on shows, everything said about either organization is tentative at best.

jmag · 10-15-2006, 02:06 PM

I thought I heard someone mention that title holders in ufc have a right to rematch or something like that..?

Grave · 10-15-2006, 02:07 PM

*yup he went and mentioned Pride. Probabley another one of those annoying "UFC suks! Pride Rules!" alts we've been getting lately*

Bomber · 10-15-2006, 02:09 PM

I'm not tired of rematches. Sometimes a rematch is needed to establish who's better. Anyway, there aren't enough elite fighters to ban rematches. What I don't like though is a rematch too soon. There should be at least a couple of matches in between. The Sylvia/AA rematch was a major setback. After part deux Silvia should have had to defend against Monson and AA should have fought Vera for #1 contender.

RockemSockem · 10-15-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bomber

I'm not tired of rematches. Sometimes a rematch is needed to establish who's better. Anyway, there aren't enough elite fighters to ban rematches. What I don't like though is a rematch too soon. There should be at least a couple of matches in between. The Sylvia/AA rematch was a major setback. After part deux Silvia should have had to defend against Monson and AA should have fought Vera for #1 contender.

I agree with what you're saying about rematches, but i think back right after Slyvia-AA 2 neither Monson or Vera had done enough to warrent a title shot. It was just a bad situation that got worse when the third fight was the second worst fight i'v ever seen.

duke09 · 10-15-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bomber

I'm not tired of rematches. Sometimes a rematch is needed to establish who's better. Anyway, there aren't enough elite fighters to ban rematches. What I don't like though is a rematch too soon. There should be at least a couple of matches in between. The Sylvia/AA rematch was a major setback. After part deux Silvia should have had to defend against Monson and AA should have fought Vera for #1 contender.

i think you hit the nail on the head: there arent enough elite fighters to ban rematches.
i really feel that this is but one of the many reasons that the sport is stagnating.
with respect to the silvia AA fight, sylvia beat some guy who didnt seem to realise he was in a fight, then all of a suden he gets to talk smack and fight for belt he lost to a better fighter on that day.
i am ahuge fan of the ufc, and i want to see the sport progress, grow and develop, but i dnt think rematches are the way to meet this objective. look at ortiz shamrock 3, there was little sense in having this bludgeoning occur for th ethird time. liddell babalu 2, this was no more a fight than the first one, nor is liddell ortiz 2gonna be.

Bomber · 10-15-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockemSockem

I agree with what you're saying about rematches, but i think back right after Slyvia-AA 2 neither Monson or Vera had done enough to warrent a title shot.

Vera no, but Monson was on a 15-fight win streak at the time. He's pretty much at the same spot now as he was when Sylvia/AA III happened. The only fight he's had since then was Perosh, who was just brought in as filler while AA took Monson's title shot.

duke09 · 10-15-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grave

*waits for him to mention Pride....you just know he will eventually*

didnt you just mention pride as well? one of those guys heh? nice. lest we forget that dana white, the prince of the ufc, mentioned pride long before i did, probably because he recognises the need to have fsh talent in an otherwise stagnating arena. i much prefer ufc to pride, likley because i am exposed to ufc, but you must admit that the ufc needs fresh talent to stir things up. just look at what silve did in an otherwise uninteresting MW division. if you like dynasties, watch the reruns on the soap opera network, but if you like top quality mma action, consider the possibility of soemone beating liddell or hughes other than the same people they've beaten before. look at sylvia as well, he is theufc champ, but he's not even rated in the top 5 of the heavyweight division onmost mma websites. i love the ufc as much as the next guy, but i love top qulaity match ups even more, thats all im trying to say.

Bomber · 10-15-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke09

i think you hit the nail on the head: there arent enough elite fighters to ban rematches.
i really feel that this is but one of the many reasons that the sport is stagnating.

Stagnating? Are you kidding??? The UFC is on a tear. I hear and see references now that were NEVER there before, newspaper stories, posters, TV coverage, frequent PPV's, the internet explosion. It's mind-boggling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke09

i am ahuge fan of the ufc, and i want to see the sport progress, grow and develop, but i dnt think rematches are the way to meet this objective. look at ortiz shamrock 3, there was little sense in having this bludgeoning occur for th ethird time. liddell babalu 2, this was no more a fight than the first one, nor is liddell ortiz 2gonna be.

The fans of these fighters definitely want to see rematches. There are only a handful of MMA fighters who can justify a title shot. There are only 10 fighters in the world who are top ten. Both of the top organizations face this problem, so there HAVE to be rematches. Sure it would be nice to see some inter-organizational matches, but you know what they say... if frogs could fly they wouldn't have to keep bumping their asses on the ground.

duke09 · 10-15-2006, 02:49 PM

[quote=Bomber]Stagnating? Are you kidding??? The UFC is on a tear. I hear and see references now that were NEVER there before, newspaper stories, posters, TV coverage, frequent PPV's, the internet explosion. It's mind-boggling.

just because it has become popular and its been mentioned on the news or in the media doesnt make it material or of subsatantial quality (did you hear that vince vaugn dumped jen aniston). an explosion may be an apt descriptor, but simply acquiringh new followers doesnt, in and of itself, precede progession or evolution. we have a growing number of scientologists in the world, for example. new fans may not know the history, or even recognise talent whe they see it. ask any new fan garnered by the new attention who dan severn, carlos newton, or even frank shamrock are, and they likely wouldnt have a clue. i am not suggesting new fans should be the source of ridicule, as they are the future of this sport jaust as amuch as any new fighter in the gym right now, but i think th epurists may be better suited to recognise smoke, mirrors, and hype moreso than the guy who just tuned in.
in closing, i offer one more example: how many new fans think ortiz will beat liddell down simply because they are more familiar with ortiz's name because of camera time? now guage this against real life where ortiz is sleeping long before his bedtime when the iceman puts him out.

Bomber · 10-15-2006, 02:59 PM

The explosion of popularity should mean more money for the sport, therefore bigger paydays and more money to buy talent. Also maybe some new competitors who would have gone to boxing. Or wrestlers and martial artists seeing potential for $$$ instead of simply fighting for glory.

Re Ortiz, hell yeah, I'm ready to see him get his bell rung again.