Tweet
I got to thinking about the fight between Miguel Cotto and Antonio Margarito in December and while I'm sure a lot of us who were there to see the first fight while it was happening came out of it in pure shock and awe, we're now thinking about the same thing for the rematch. It was a fight that people were talking about well before the first fight ever took place. Hardcore boxing fans were saying, "Wow...could you imagine those two in the ring together? That'd be a war." Not only did Bob Arum put them together for a fight fan's dream match, we were expecting a war, it was probably one of the few occasions where the fight actually lived up to, if not surpassed, its hype. Power punches left and right, an undefeated fighter's record on the line, an underdog looking to get a signature win in his career, blood, drama, and top it all off...a dramatic late round upset that sent shockwaves through the boxing world.
Three years later, they're obviously no where near as relevant or as fearsome as before. Both have taken their share of damage since then but there's always been an attraction for a grudge rematch, especially when you take into account the Puerto Rican-Mexican rivalry which adds a whole new dimension of contempt in the affair.
However, I've been thinking about this rematch and got to thinking that it won't be as dramatic as the first. I've said that the anticipation will be greater than the fight itself. History tells us that, in the majority of cases, a rematch is not as good as the first fight. We look at fights such as:
Morales Barrera II
Ali Frazier II
Gatti Ward II
Leonard Hearns II
Leonard Duran II
Tyson-Concepcion II
Martínez-Williams II
Pavlik-Taylor II
Bute-Andrade II
^^^These were all rematches of which the FIRST FIGHTS were dramatic, back-and-forth, fight-of-the-year winners (or at least candidates) in their respective years. All these rematches (in my personal opinion) were not as good as the first ones. Barrera-Morales II had some action, but nowhere near the drama and competitiveness of the first fight. Gatti-Ward II had Ward in serious trouble early in the fight, but it wasn't as great as the first fight (Gatti was pretty comfortably in the lead in the rematch).
There are exceptions to the rules of course. You could probably say that JMM-Pacquiao II or Marquez/Vasquez II were actually more dramatic than their first fights (actually, I'd say Marquez/Vasquez is the only trilogy out there that actually got better with every fight...excluding the fourth fight). But anyway, I start to think about why is it that rematches aren't as good as the first fights. I come to the conclusion that when two fighters meet the first time, they don't know how their opponent will measure up to them. They don't know how tough they're going to be, exactly how strong his punches are, etc. Nobody's sure of how far his opponent is willing to go to get that win under his belt. In a rematch, you already have a general idea of what mistakes you can capitalize on and what you can fine-tune in your arsenal to better suit your fight strategy...even if it means turning it into a "boring" fight. That's my theory, anyway. But the tendency's there...first fights are usually more dramatic than the second.
This is why I think Cotto-Margarito II, while still likely to be an action-packed fight in a sell-out crowd in Madison Square Garden, it won't be as good as the first one. I hope I'm wrong, though.
What do you all think?
Three years later, they're obviously no where near as relevant or as fearsome as before. Both have taken their share of damage since then but there's always been an attraction for a grudge rematch, especially when you take into account the Puerto Rican-Mexican rivalry which adds a whole new dimension of contempt in the affair.
However, I've been thinking about this rematch and got to thinking that it won't be as dramatic as the first. I've said that the anticipation will be greater than the fight itself. History tells us that, in the majority of cases, a rematch is not as good as the first fight. We look at fights such as:
Morales Barrera II
Ali Frazier II
Gatti Ward II
Leonard Hearns II
Leonard Duran II
Tyson-Concepcion II
Martínez-Williams II
Pavlik-Taylor II
Bute-Andrade II
^^^These were all rematches of which the FIRST FIGHTS were dramatic, back-and-forth, fight-of-the-year winners (or at least candidates) in their respective years. All these rematches (in my personal opinion) were not as good as the first ones. Barrera-Morales II had some action, but nowhere near the drama and competitiveness of the first fight. Gatti-Ward II had Ward in serious trouble early in the fight, but it wasn't as great as the first fight (Gatti was pretty comfortably in the lead in the rematch).
There are exceptions to the rules of course. You could probably say that JMM-Pacquiao II or Marquez/Vasquez II were actually more dramatic than their first fights (actually, I'd say Marquez/Vasquez is the only trilogy out there that actually got better with every fight...excluding the fourth fight). But anyway, I start to think about why is it that rematches aren't as good as the first fights. I come to the conclusion that when two fighters meet the first time, they don't know how their opponent will measure up to them. They don't know how tough they're going to be, exactly how strong his punches are, etc. Nobody's sure of how far his opponent is willing to go to get that win under his belt. In a rematch, you already have a general idea of what mistakes you can capitalize on and what you can fine-tune in your arsenal to better suit your fight strategy...even if it means turning it into a "boring" fight. That's my theory, anyway. But the tendency's there...first fights are usually more dramatic than the second.
This is why I think Cotto-Margarito II, while still likely to be an action-packed fight in a sell-out crowd in Madison Square Garden, it won't be as good as the first one. I hope I'm wrong, though.
What do you all think?
Comment