Boxing Forums banner

rematches, trilogies & quadrilogies

1118 Views 13 Replies 7 Participants Last post by  GazOC
Thought I would post to get peoples opinions on rematches, trilogies & quadrilogies.

Do you believe there is a need to have a rematch, a trilogy or even a quadrilogy of matches against the same opponent? and is it ever justified to have these sort of return bouts? or are they mere cash ins? Pacquiao's latest quadrilogy for me is taking the piss a bit. I can see a trilogy when after the rematch it's tied at 1 win a piece but to then go again aren't they just milking it and delaying the much hyped "super fight" with Floyd Mayweather Jnr.?

I was listening to an interview by Steve Bunce with Paulie Mallignaggi on the bunce hour couple weeks back and Paulie said he'd fight Ricky Hatton in America then if he won that they'd be level at 1 win each - he then said he'd fight again at Wembley or a big british stadium to round off a trilogy. What are peoples thoughts on these things? Do you think boxing should return to it's primal roots of 1 fight to settle it all and fighters fighting new opponents all the time?

this trilogy stuff is not only happening in boxing but it's spread to mixed martial arts too. UFC have already had several trilogies and to be honest my view is that these things seem to be quite a modern thing generated by TV companies. And, by that I mean before there was Ali vs Frazier/Foreman - was there ever a trilogy in boxing in the old days as far as I can see was all about individual matches and new opponents.
1 - 1 of 14 Posts
For me the guy who lost the last fight has to convince me that he could win the next one. In Daves example of Hatton-Malinaggi, if Paulie wins the rematch and Hatton looks finished then I'd rather the score was left at 1-1 than go through a pointless third fight.
1 - 1 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.