Calm down !! Rematch law dictates 90% of returns are damp squibs !!

Whether it's because of the line "Fool me once shame on you.." ......Or because "I had a bad night first time around"............Generally rematches are damp squibs...........

Like I've remarked before.........Groves hit Froch with his best shot......Fought a guy with no legs for three rounds and then once caught solidly got stopped...When Froch got his legs back in the 4th he won more rounds...........Dispassionate analysis for me points to Froch all night long !!...........and rematch law suggests the guy who wins the first generally wins the return.........

ALSO rematch law suggests much hyped returns become damp squibs in 90% of the cases...........Here is a list of much hyped returns not living up to the spectacle of the first !!......Off the top of my nut....

Louis - Schmelling............Ali - Frazier........Tyson - Ruddock..............Moore - Durelle...........Chavez - Taylor.............Fenech - Nelson............Marciano - Walcott.............Leonard - Duran..................Benn - Eubank................Haugen - Pazienza.......Holyfield - Qawi...........Ali - Liston.........Ali - Cooper..........Pryor - Arguello...............Starling - Breland.............Whittaker - Mcgirt.....Manny - JMM.......

I'm sure I could think of many more............Not so easy to think of returns that were as good second time around............

Robbo - Turpin................Morales - Barrera............According to legend Jeffries - Fitz may have been more competitive....Perhaps Dempsey - Tunney too.........There are more but they are the exception to the rule..

But you get my drift...........

Just don't get too excited about this fight because whilst familiarity breeds contempt..........It generally breeds stinker.........

and I don't want you boys disappointed !!

The Tyson vs Ruddock rematch was a better fight than the original to be fair (which ended prematurely ala Froch vs Groves).

I agree, though. Look at Don King's 1994 card (Revenge: The Rematches). All four were poorer affairs than the originals.

I've been trying to rack my brains on rematches that were better........

Holmes v spinks was a little more exciting.......Bowe v Holy wasn't as good....Jones v Griffin was turd..

Guess people learn from their mistakes or they just believe in their own hype after causing an upset first time around..

How did you come up with the figure 90%?

Is that just in case people might start reeling of rematches that wernt damp squibs?

Also it depends how good the first fight was really.

Truss, you didnt say better, you said damp squibs. So does that include fights that were good but not as good as the first or what?

It was an approximation...........But a pretty good guess.............

Rematches tend to be arranged because the first fight was terrific or exciting because it was a huge upset...

Which gives the 2nd fight a lot, as in this case, to live up to !!

Damp squibs because they don't live up to expectation........Soldier.

Jefferies v Sailor Tom Sharkey II was reportedly a cracker.


There are some obvious ones Gatti v Ward, Corales v Castillo, the Thrilla etc.


I read a stat a while ago though that 80% of rematches are won by the victor of the first fight.

Eubank/Watson II was, regardless of the tragic ending, a brilliant fight.

It was my stat.........I lifted it from KO magazine I believe.......But that was back in the 80s whether it's changed I don't know........

Didn't know about Jeffries-Sharkey 2.........Though it was controversial I believe...

Think Jeffries - Corbett 2 was worse than it's original.......Much easier..

Maybe Sharkey - Carnera 2 was better .........Don't know how good the first fight was.

Louis - Conn 2 was a squib.

Of course the thriller is a good one but it did follow a damp squib rematch.

Interesting that you mention Pacquiao-Marquez in the category of rematches which didn't live up to the first fights, Truss. I thought their second fight was just as great as their first. Maybe even better.

Can see what you're saying, but let's keep in mind that this is an immediate rematch. The versions of Froch and Groves which face off in May won't be too different to the versions we saw in November, if they are any different at all.

Different scenario to the likes of Chavez-Taylor II, Benn-Eubank II etc, in which at least one of the two fighters had regressed badly since the first fight and in which the whole landscape of each man's career had changed in the meantime.

Still plenty of examples to back you up even without that caveat, but I could also point out rematches / series such as Griffith-Paret, Zaragoza-Banke, Vazquez-Marquez, Bowe-Holyfield (just because the middle one wasn't as good as the first doesn't mean it wasn't still an excellent fight in its own right) etc where the return bouts, often fought soon after the last, have been superb as well.

90% seems a bit of a high estimate, to me. In this case, the excuses from Froch and McCracken are that they overlooked Groves and didn't take the fight as seriously as they should - but I'm not so sure.

The rematch might not be as good as the first one, which was a Fight of the Year contender, but come May 31 Groves will still be faster than Carl, will still be able to land that right hand with regularity, will still be quicker on his feet etc. If Froch wins, then I'd be surprised if it doesn't take another super-human effort with a lot of problems to overcome along the way.

I'm sure it'll be a very good fight second time around.

You make good points............But I think Benn was more gunshy in the return with Eubank and the fight suffered.........(As a result of the first fight, not from being down the road as it were)

Moore learned from his fight with Durelle.........

Don't buy the rematches were later on as too much of a factor in many cases..Though true in Chavez - Taylor which I probably shouldn't have inserted......

Generally someone learns more from the first fight..

Norris - Brown being a good example from Haz........Leonard - Duran.............Hearns - Leonard........Hagler - Hamsho..............Minter - Vito..............Mcrory - Jones.........Canizales - Hardy...........Starling - Breland.........Brown - Trice.......

Maybe the 90 % is too high.........Not by much If it is.......

Thanks for the contribution and to everyone who has posted one........Even Dave.

The basic premise is right. Ultimately, fighters are going to learn something from the first fight, look to negate areas where their opponents had success etc. The likelihood is that the winner of the first has a psychological advantage to take into the rematch. There is also the likelihood that the guy who won the first fight is simply the better fighter. None of those factors is true in all cases but add them together and it all points to the winner winning again in a less exciting fight... Most of the time.

This fight doesn't really follow that norm though. Froch may have been surprised that groves stood his ground, but I don't know what he'll have learnt to do about it. Whichever, I don't see froch's experience of the first fight making him think he can just try and walk groves down.  Its hard to say who has the psychological advantage. It depends on how hurt groves was at the end. Probably only George knows that. And did the better fighter win? Possibly, but he hadn't been for most of the night.

Lots of reasons to think this could still be a very good fight... Though history is against it.

Zale v Graziano rematch was the greatest middleweight title fight ever.

as far as froch goes, i only see a better win for him, look at the improvements he made in the kessler rematch (better fight too imo), froch has a habit of putting in a huge performance after a shakey one ala bute.

do think the bradley pacman rematch will be a bore tho, with bradley been more more cautious and using his speed and avoiding been hit.

as for worst most pointless rematchs i can think of donaire vs darchyian is probably up there

eddyfightfan wrote:as far as froch goes, i only see a better win for him, look at the improvements he made in the kessler rematch (better fight too imo), froch has a habit of putting in a huge performance after a shakey one ala bute.

do think the bradley pacman rematch will be a bore tho, with bradley been more more cautious and using his speed and avoiding been hit.

as for worst most pointless rematchs i can think of donaire vs darchyian is probably up there

What? You mean securing a fight with a guy who openly admits he's got one eye on retirement?

froch did himself at the time. so why does that mean anything? kessler certainly didnt fight like he was holding back or look any different from usual.

Always thought Kessler was a better than average trier...........An overachiever......

Not sure how good Froch is after all these years either.......So many close fights.....Outclassed by Ward.....Maybe he's an overachiever too !!

Certainly have Calzaghe well above Carl..

on a par in my eyes but a defeat or 2 hurts froch, whereas a win or 2 pushes him over (calzaghe) im my eyes.

certainly both are overacheivers (in the sense they both beat other fighters more skilled than themselfs) but probably deserve the number 2-3 spots in the division (is kessler were active now).

Froch sees Kessler's 'over achievement' and raises him a 'made the most of his talent'

eddyfightfan wrote:froch did himself at the time. so why does that mean anything? kessler certainly didnt fight like he was holding back or look any different from usual.

There's a difference between giving it your best and being way past your best. I've little time for Froch but there's no way he'd improved to such a degree that he was able to outclass Kessler as much as he did. Kessler had faded badly........

"I've little time for Froch" ........I imagine If he beats Groves you'll not give him credit as Groves is still green..........

Hard to give people we don't like credit..........I never give my Wife any..  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"I've little time for Froch" ........I imagine If he beats Groves you'll not give him credit as Groves is still green..........

Hard to give people we don't like credit..........I never give my Wife any..  

You're getting confused in your old age Tubby. I've little time for Froch the person (or at least the boring braggart who's emerged over the past few years...much preferred the relatively down to earth version of Froch from a few years ago.) As a fighter I've always been aware of his limitations but been ready to give him credit when it's been due just as readily as I've been critical of his poor performances. If he beats Groves fair and square, whilst I'll not be best pleased, I won't begrudge him the win as he'll certainly have to earn it.

Shame your massive failings as a human being and husband have caused you to try and tar me with the same brush. I was going to say I expect more of you but to be honest, I expect very little from you and am rarely disappointed

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"I've little time for Froch" ........I imagine If he beats Groves you'll not give him credit as Groves is still green..........

Hard to give people we don't like credit..........I never give my Wife any..  

You're in danger of overdoing the  ""

You don't want people asking questions.

Emperor Vespasian always said..."One shouldn't leave an audience with the Emperor..disappointed"........

He also said "Go the Red Sox"

Given that your not an Emperor or anything other than a huge disappointment on so many levels, I'll take your efforts at sagacity with a pinch of salt/pillar as big as Lot's wife and move on.

DAVE667 wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:froch did himself at the time. so why does that mean anything? kessler certainly didnt fight like he was holding back or look any different from usual.

There's a difference between giving it your best and being way past your best. I've little time for Froch but there's no way he'd improved to such a degree that he was able to outclass Kessler as much as he did. Kessler had faded badly........

i think it was more of a case of froch getting his tactics right 2nd time rounds, he didnt walk into shots like he did in the first fight. and going from fighting in the other guys back yard to fighting at home also helped.

or....Kessler had faded so badly he couldn't get his shots off like could BACK WHEN HE WASN'T SHOT.

He still had Froch on jelly legs in the last round but was so shattered he couldn't take advantage of it.

You blow that final round way out of proportion, he was momentarily staggered but at no point did he look like getting stopped or even dropped.

Kessler was not shot in the slightest either, a bit past his best but not far from it, his performance in the rematch was not the performance of a shot fighter.

Fights that were the equivalent of The Godfather, in that the sequel was at least as good as the original:

Ross-McLarnin; Graziano-Zale; Pep-Saddler; Arguello-Escalera; Chacon-Boza-Edwards; Duran-DeJesus; Saad Muhammad-Yaqui Lopez; Sanchez-Danny Lopez. Others, I'm sure, fit the bill as well.

Would probably have to disgree that the second Nelson-Fenech fight was a damp squib, although the fact that I was actually there means that I should, to a degree, declare an interest. I thought that it was one of the most masterful displays of counter-punching and of neutralising and ultimately humiliating a bully that I have ever seen. The difference between very good and great encapsulated in one fight.

It wasn't very competitive.......Usually a good fight is that...

But you've offered some good fights....

That could start a philosophical discussion itself, truss, whether a fight has to be competitive to be great. See, I regard Nelson-Fenech II, Sanchez-Gomez, Foreman-Frazier and even Hearns-Duran as great fights of a sort, or at least landmark ones. On paper, they were pick 'em fights (bizarre though that seems in the case of Hearns-Duran 30 years later) and the sheer virtuosity or brutality of the winner makes them memorable, significant or even, great, depending on your definition.

Lewis v Rahman 2 / Jones Jr v Tarver 2 were pretty tasty

Other one coming up that I reckon will be good:

Pacquiao v Bradley 2

Nelson was a bit of a rematch specialist when in his prime. Always had an excuse for his defeats/lesser performances but seemed to learn/up his game second time out.

One of a few reasons why it surprises me how keen people are to write off his chances in a  hypothetical Sanchez rematch

I like philosophical discussions... I'm a believer in solipsism...

I just hope Groves fights as well as he did first time around. if he does i think we will have another great fight. couldnt help but feel everything came together for groves at the right time in the first fight, and even when he was dominating i always felt on the edge of my seat for the fact that he could make an error and blow it anytime. i hope he doesnt go in too confident, or make a mistake early. he does lose concentration at times. would hate to see him stopped early, and have to listen to frochs i told you so.