Haney v Kambosis 2 and other unnecessary rematches...

Thinking about other time-wasting returns from the past...Obviously people will look to Fury v Wilder 3..Even Fury v Chisora 2..

Hagler v Hamsho springs to mind...Hamsho never looked like beating Hagler for 13 foul ridden rounds and we had to put up with him going sooner in 84..Beaten before the first bell even sounded..

Chavez v Taylor 2...We disagree over the first fight and that is okay but what we agree on was that not only was Taylor a shell after it...But a hammering off Norris and then a beating off Espana made the second fight a formality...and as Chavez never beat anyone quickly made it a tortuous affair for the brave Philadelphian.

Sure rematches in history have been one sided slaps...Marciano v Walcott...Jeffries v Fitz...Schelling v Louis...

But they were either still competing at a high level or the first fight warranted it.

Kambosis just isn't in the same league as Haney and the first fight didn't warrant it..

Pointless as Hagler v Hamsho 2.!!

Guess Haney gets a good payday for little effort. He'll be happy

This recent obsession with two-fight deals (different to rematch clauses, although I'm not always a fan of those either) is one of my many grievances with boxing.

Whatever happened to a deposed champion having to earn the chance to win his title back by beating a couple of contenders? Sure, sometimes a second fight might make sense and be appetising, but that's dependent on the first really getting the juices flowing or being between two evenly matched guys. Neither of those things apply in the case of Kambosos-Haney.

These guys fight so infrequently that this kind of stuff just holds things up and stops us getting the fights we really want to see.

For some reason there's a craze (even amongst fans) of thinking that a result doesn't count unless you do it twice.