The first fight is always more important than the rematch...

What bullshit.

Take Leonard/Duran, for example. You can't tell me with a straight face that the first fight was more important in the big picture than the rematch - the rematch that set everything back to the way it was, and set the stage for one of the biggest fights ever (Leonard-Hearns)

There are plenty of other examples. Fuck this myth.

 

good post

 

Agreed.

 

Agreed. In fact I would say...SPLENDID post!

 

DeGale-Groves II will prove this

 

Agreed. Wlad vs Brewster II was the truth. This is fact.

 

Another example is Lewis-Rahman 2 fight series. To borrow your phrase:

[it was] the rematch that set everything back to the way it was, and set the stage for one of the biggest fights ever...

 

Good one. :bears:

 

It's as if the first fight didn't even happen in a lot of cases.

 

first fights should be stricken from the records!!!

Hear Hear!!!

Down with Robinson vs Basilio 1, LaMotta vs Robinson 1, Tarver vs Jones 1!! Down!!! I sez down!!!

 

Always is a key word here. It obviously goes both ways.

Still, Tarver/Jones is a great example. The rematch is obviously much more important than the first fight.

 

Add Randall - Chavez 1 and Norris - Brown 1 :cheer:

 

I disagree, the first fight is generally the most important.

Especially in the case of Duran Vs Leonard.

When they were both at their best, Duran won.

 

Cool.

Still, in the real world, at the time, the rematch was obviously much more imporant.

 

I've never even heard this myth before. Are you sure you haven't made it up? ::

I'll say this though - the match ups that happen in regulation rings are always more important than fights that happen in big clown rings custom made to let one guy avoid participating in the sport in question.

 

Ive never understood that point of view myself... If it were true, why would the guy who won the first time even bother to try in the seocnd fight?

He could just say "well, the first one counted, but this was just an exhibition match"

 

I not only don't understand that point of view, Ive never even fucking heard of it ::
80% sure Steve just made it up on the spot as an excuse to slate Duran.

 

And what exactly is wrong with that?

 

Duran Might have Been @ HIS Best, but Leonard Most Certainly WASN'T...The Leonard that Beat Thomas Hearns was Better than EITHER Version of Leonard in the Preceding Duran Fights.....

 

A bunch of guys around here have said this in the past. Serious.

 

Obviously.

 

yep. Tam used to say it all the time

 

I WILL KILL YOU!

 

No. Marquez clearly won out over Vazquez first time, but was stopped prematurely in the return and robbed of his championship. That was the day I decided there and then never to trust rematches.

They are always up to no good.

 

:giggle:

 

::

 

the first fight is the one that counts

that's why boxing is great...there's 1 fight and it is significant.....not a "best 6 out of 10 fights" shit that you guys like

 

Ali vs. Liston?

 

Roy vs Tarver?