Rematches you think would've went different to the first fight

In the build up to the rematch of Froch and Groves a lot of people on here said they fancied Froch as history generally showed rematches went the way of the first fight winner. Of course there are examples of some that didn't but on the whole that's been the case. Mayweather vs Castillo/Maidana, Froch v Groves, Mosley v Oscar (despite the juice issues) and so on.

But are there are fights where you think if a rematch had've happened that the loser would've got the nod second time round? One that spring to mind is Lewis v Vitali although Vitali took some seriously heavy shots as the fight went on. Another possible one for the future is De Gale vs Groves.

Vitali was a late substitute...Lewis looked disinterested and still bust the walking chin up...

Lewis showed in all his rematches he was a quick learner and Vitali wasn't much to learn....

Tyson - Douglas....Douglas was lazy and as he showed against Holy lacked motivation....

Baer - Braddock....Can't see Baer peeing about for ten rounds after losing his crown.....

Mcguigan - Cruz.....

Lomachenko vs Salido, think lomachenko will be more aware of how to deal with salidos aggression

Matthysse vs Garcia, garcia seems to have lost something since the first fight and pre his eye shutting thought matthysse was in the ascendency and looked to be taking control

Maidana vs Khan

I guess it's where the psychological advantage lies. Normally that's with the winner but not always. Lewis klitschko being a case in point. Though I tend to agree with truss that Lewis would have been my favourite in that instance.

Not many agree on the hagler Leonard fight, but most would have fancied Marv in the rematch... On the assumption he might not start fighting orthodox.

Hatton v Pacquaio?

RanjitPatel wrote:Hatton v Pacquaio?

Did you mean to post that in the most brutal finishes thread ranjit? Or do you fancy Ricky to turn it around in a rematch if he hadn't been hit by 50 or so lucky punches, had a better camp etc!?

I'm a big Hagler fan, but I think a rematch with Hearns might have been a bit difficult for him. Hearns would surely have learned from their fight that standing and trading with a slab of concrete like Hagler was suicidal.

You would hope so Attila. I think with better (ie actually having one) strategy Tommy could at least stretch it out a bit. He could conceivably eke out a points win or a cuts stoppage but personally I think in all likelihood it just delays the inevitable.

Tommy's great jab and the fact you had to take some heavy artillery to land your own we're his defence. To most that's a significant deterrent, but hagler would take them to land his own. He just walks him down eventually however Tommy fights for me.

Fair points Milky, but there should have been a rematch and would have been a rematch if Leonard hadn't decided to comeback. By 1987, I'm not sure how Hagler would have done against a better, more prepared Hearns.

Leonard v Hearns 2, in 1982 would also be a tough fight to call for me. The same way Leonard learned from losing his first mega fight with Duran, Hearns would have had a bit more experience too for a second fight with Leonard.

True that Tommy was looking good in 86/87 before Barkley/kinchen and Marv was a step slower.

Leonard hearns in 82 is a tough one. I'm assuming it would be at 154 for tommy's benefit... Probably heavens best weight not leonards.

I guess Tommy had proved he could keep Leonard on the end of his jab and rack up points, but conversely went into complete gunslinger mode at light middle. Leonard had proven he could take what Tommy had, and still take him out. I'd say that's the most significant of the psychological advantages and generally you'd take the winner to win again. No certainty though, especially at 154. Certainly be interesting if Tommy came out blitzing!

I don't think there's much to take from their actual rematch.

Off on a bit of a tangent,but Hearns -Barkley 2 went completely differently to how I thought it would- I was expecting a re-run of the first fight, but without the flukey KO- I though Hearns was going to do a serious number on him.

True hh... I think that's what most of us expected. It's not like hearns was struggling in the first fight before the Hail Mary. Psychological?

But then hearns had problems with kinchen which was tricky to fathom too.

I still can't believe Hearns went the distance in the Barkley rematch, considering his (possibly overblown) chin and durability / stamina issues. The pace of the fight was tremendous and Barkley dished out some serious punishment - basically disfigured Hearns' face. Barkley probably thought he had it won there and then when he decked Hearns with that big left hook in the fourth.

Hearns' legs were pretty much gone by then judging by the nature of the fight and Barkley's swarming, physical style was a good match to exploit that. He just didn't give Tommy the room to get off enough or get any leverage on his shots. X

Great fight and as you say horizontal, must have caught a lot of people by surprise. Perhaps a combination of Hill not having a style as good a fit as Barkley's for taking advantage of Tommy's decline and people not realising how past it Tommy was, and also Barkley being better than he was back in 1988, too. He was never the most skilled or cutest of fighters, but he'd changed trainers since the first fight and Eddie Mustafa Muhammad did at least give him a concept of head movement and defence, which he showed at times in the Hearns rematch.

Think Hopkins or even Robin Reid may have beaten Calzaghe in a rematch.

rodders wrote:Think Hopkins or even Robin Reid may have beaten Calzaghe in a rematch.

Cheers Rodders

Fixed that for you

One possibility which I know milky, among others, has mused about before is the sadly-unfulfilled second installment of Sanchez-Nelson. Whether it would have had a different result second time round I'm not sure, but the chance at least exists. A more experienced Nelson against a Sanchez now aware of what a sensational fighter he was up against. Still think that Sanchez's cruelly hurtful counter-punching and body attack would have given him a favourite's chance but don't rule out a more measured Nelson snatching a decision. Would have been another cracker in any event.

LFC91 vs Friend of LFC91, backgarden boxing tournament 2006.

I slipped on the stones in the garden, he knows it, I know it. Still waiting for the rematch!

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:

rodders wrote:Think Hopkins or even Robin Reid may have beaten Calzaghe in a rematch.

Cheers Rodders

Fixed that for you

Actually that's the other rodders but hopefully he agrees....

How about Robinson vs Maxim ? Ray came very close in adding the 175lb title but never got another chance, albeit apparently wasn't a huge public outcry for the immediate rematch, Nat Fleischer was spitting feathers about Maxim not facing Moore and Robinson not facing Turpin in a 3rd encounter. Maxim wasn't a noted puncher and I can't foresee him outpointing Robinson, its possible he may outlast him again, but I'd fancy Robinson to nick a decision.

One for Chris, Jones Jnr vs Toney ?? Yes the first one a one-sided hugely disapppointing superfight but I just can't see gulf being that big which was on display that evening in 94. Both tremendous fighters who have the style to give one another fits, I fancied Toney to win back then , Its hard to favour him in a rematch but I think he'd give Jones Jnr a real run for his money.

Tito v ODLH: Would Oscar be more aggressive in the rematch ? He seems an emotional guy and I'm sure the criticism of his negativity would've hurt. Could be a much better 2nd fight with both of them touching down and one possibly laid out.

Cheers, Rodders

captain carrantuohil wrote:One possibility which I know milky, among others, has mused about before is the sadly-unfulfilled second installment of Sanchez-Nelson. Whether it would have had a different result second time round I'm not sure, but the chance at least exists. A more experienced Nelson against a Sanchez now aware of what a sensational fighter he was up against. Still think that Sanchez's cruelly hurtful counter-punching and body attack would have given him a favourite's chance but don't rule out a more measured Nelson snatching a decision. Would have been another cracker in any event.

I certainly have mused at length on this one. Consensus seems to be that Sanchez has it easier second time. But partly because I've never bought into the invincibility of Sanchez or believed that being an unknown quantity is a greater advantage than less than two weeks notice and just a dozen fights' experience is a disadvantage.

Chuck in nelson being the rematch king and you have a pickem for me. They're both going to learn from the first fight, I guess it's who learns most. Mouthwatering fight between two great fighters we were sadly deprived of.

But I am a bit of an unashamed zoomy fan, so perhaps I'm not entirely objective.

You're damn right a Jones-Toney rematch would have been different to the first fight, Rodney. Toney would have won two rounds that time instead of just one.

Joking aside, can't see Toney beating Roy at any point before Roy's form fell of a cliff in 2004. Even then, Jones going back down to 175 played a part in that, for me, and by that stage Toney was already too heavy to take advantage of that like Tarver and Johnson did - he was campaigning at Heavyweight by the end of 2003. Roy and James were almost identical weights both on the scales and in the ring when they beat Ruiz and Jirov respectively within a few weeks of each other earlier that year, but without the draining issues I'd still have taken Jones to win a straightforward decision if they'd met as Cruisers.

Just too fast, too elusive, too gifted for Toney. I think mobile, fleet-footed fighters with good defence would always be a problem for Toney. One of the reasons I think Kalambay, even a slightly over the hill version, could have been a horrible fight for him in the early nineties. He could beat them, but Jones would always be a bridge too far in anything like their primes, in my opinion.

I can't see past Sanchez I'm afraid Milky/Captain (I am a Mexican cheerleader/bum boy though) Always got the feeling Sanchez fought to levels and knew he was fighting a novice (accepted a bloody exceptional one) and wouldn't have made the same mistake second time around, I'd predict a competitive fight with Sanchez winning by a few rounds on the scorecard.

Cheers, Rodders

I think Sanchez close points win is probably the percentage call rodders... But don't get me started on Sanchez fighting down to his opponents, we might be here for sometime

milkyboy wrote:I think Sanchez close points win is probably the percentage call rodders... But don't get me started on Sanchez fighting down to his opponents, we might be here for sometime

Okay mate shall we discuss Floyd v Manny instead ??

Cheers, Rodders

A lot tend to forget that despite a great record Sanchez was only 23 years old himself when he fought Nelson, so at that age he could almost certainly improve.

He beats Nelson in a rematch for me.

I always feel Sanchez would have been a multi weight world champion, age would have been on his side but for that tragic accident.

I feel we were robbed of a fighter who may have proven to have been the best Mexican of them all.

Rodney wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think Sanchez close points win is probably the percentage call rodders... But don't get me started on Sanchez fighting down to his opponents, we might be here for sometime

Okay mate shall we discuss Floyd v Manny instead ??

Cheers, Rodders

I'd rather debate floyd's relative merits for greatness v joe Louis, but whatever takes your fancy!

Nico the gman wrote:A lot tend to forget that despite a great record Sanchez was only 23 years old himself when he fought Nelson, so at that age he could almost certainly improve.

He beats Nelson in a rematch for me.

I always feel Sanchez would have been a multi weight world champion, age would have been on his side but for that tragic accident.

I feel we were robbed of a fighter who may have proven to have been the best Mexican of them all.

He certainly could have gone in to even greater things nico, no disputing that. He was a forty fight veteran 23 year old though, so it's also possible we might already have seen the best of him... it's not impossible he does a Benitez either.

Some mouthwatering fights for him... Nelson return,  pedrosa, there was talk of him moving up..., arguello was being talked about but he was on the verge of moving up again himself so not sure how realistic that really was.

Whichever, lots of what ifs, and plenty of potentially great fights we missed out on.

Jackson v Corbett - Peter to smack to poncey little tw*t from here to eternity making Sully soil himself and give up the belt in a manner that would make Riddick Bowe blush.

Ah, the old Nelson-Sanchez debate.

Fundamentally, Nelson was always quite a good styles fit for a brilliant counter-puncher like Sanchez. Zoomy was a bit of an anomaly in the sense that, of the guys who gave Sal problems during his reign, he was the only one who didn’t have a cagey or long-range kind of style like Ford, Cowdell and Castillo. Sanchez normally gobbled up guys who tried to pressure him and tried to take his head off such as Gomez and Lopez.

Nelson was more cerebral and durable than those two, though, and while Sanchez could have still improved as a fighter over the coming years, it’s doubtful that he’d have improved to the same degree that Nelson did. Sanchez was already one of the greatest fighters in the world in 1982, Nelson was an untested novice. For reasons that milky has pointed out in the past I don’t think Sanchez could realistically stop Nelson again; Nelson had never been past ten rounds before they fought, then all of a sudden there he is in the fifteenth round with an all-time great who had freakish stamina. He was bound to be exhausted and it was that almost as much as the punishment that Sanchez dished out which resulted in the stoppage.

Nelson was never stopped in the remainder of his career, even with Fenech hitting him with everything but the bath tub (yep, he used up the kitchen sink, too) in blazing Vegas heat when Nelson was apparently still weakened from the aftereffects of Malaria.

And of course, he had the knack of performing so much better in his second fight against an opponent than in his first fight. Villasana, Martinez, Fenech, Ruelas, Leija (ok, that one took until a third fight); happened too many times for it to be a coincidence.

The smart money is still probably on Sanchez by points as others have said. There is a distinct possibility that he took Nelson lightly – we know it happens. If he went in to a rematch knowing the threat his opponent possessed then common sense says he’d get another good result if he gave them full respect this time. But considering it’d be against a more experienced, hardened and intelligent Nelson who already gave him a great fight when he wasn’t yet the finished article, it would probably be awfully close and Nelson winning it wouldn’t be a shock.

The Sanchez-Nelson debate is always going to be a 50/50 opinion split, solid arguments for both fighters.

How would an Ali v Foreman rematch have gone in the U.S.A, in an air conditioned arena? Thinking about it, how come there was never a rematch between these two?