What happened to rematches after a controversial loss.

[FeFist]

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Marquez beat Pacquiao
Pacquiao beat Bradley

FACTS

Why are you comparing the situation to Marquez's? The reaction of those two events are completely different, none of this ''Pacquiao should hand his belt over to Marquez'' garbage and none of this ''The commission should declare Marquez the winner'' etc. No, people accepted that it was a robbery, accept that things should be done in the future to eliminate it from the sport but ultimately every time Marquez has been robbed against Pacquiao he sought to settle things in the rings.

Rematches are good after close fights. Pacquiao vs Bradley wasn't close. No need to see another one-sided fight.

Hopkins v Pascal was not a close fight neither was Malignaggi v Diaz. Abril v Rios was a one sided beating, despite that Abril wants the rematch ( Unfortunately Rios won't give him the opportunity to set the record straight).

[Weebler I]

These decisions are so ridiculous that they don't need a rematch.

Genuinely close decisions tend to get a second fight.

[Bullrider]

It would be better if Paq-man just retire. These opponents of his don't deserve millions of dollars just by running and surviving. Makes me really puke. They disgust me to no end, if you ask me.

[bojangles1987]

I don't understand boxing fans. Actually I do, what I should say is that boxing fans irritate me. Controversial losses/wins are a part of the sport, they piss me off and steps should be taken to prevent them from happening. I personally had Pacquiao winning in a close fight the minority has Bradley winning. I think a lot of the outrage is down to the initial outcry, casual fans won't watch the fight twice, hardcore fans are afraid to admit that they were influenced by HBO, and Pac Stans.... well they still believe he beat Marquez in their third fight not a lot needs to be said.

Anyway the above is essentially irrelevant as Pacquiao has the opportunity to set the record straight outside of the boohooing to the commission to launch and investigation and what not. I thought Hopkins was cheated out of a win against Pascal, he rematched him and won. Thought Malignaggi was cheated out of a win against Diaz, he rematched him and won. People thought Mayweather robbed Castillo, rematched him and beat him again. People thought Cotto was cheated against Margarito, he rematched him and won.

I could understand the flack Bradley's receiving if he took the controversial win and said ''**** you'' to a Pacquiao rematch but the ball really is in Pacquiao's court.

As things stand it seems as though people are going out of their way to make him the unofficial winner of that fight.

When the only reason one guy won a fight is to set up a rematch that allows the other fighter to duck someone the sport has been calling for him to fight for 3 years, it's hard to get excited for that rematch. Especially when I have to pay 60 bucks to watch it (legally).

[bojangles1987]

Why are you comparing the situation to Marquez's? The reaction of those two events are completely different, none of this ''Pacquiao should hand his belt over to Marquez'' garbage and none of this ''The commission should declare Marquez the winner'' etc. No, people accepted that it was a robbery, accept that things should be done in the future to eliminate it from the sport but ultimately every time Marquez has been robbed against Pacquiao he sought to settle things in the rings.


Hopkins v Pascal was not a close fight neither was Malignaggi v Diaz. Abril v Rios was a one sided beating, despite that Abril wants the rematch ( Unfortunately Rios won't give him the opportunity to set the record straight).

Hopkins vs. Pascal was absolutely a close fight. Those knockdowns definitely gave Pascal a case for a draw.

[whirlwind]

There should be no rematch. Pacquiao beat Bradley so bad, broke his two legs and he needed to put in wheelchair.