Even before I get into the substance of this story, I first want to mention I feel that the "Rematch Clause" written into contracts before fights should be done away with. Why should it be that -just in case of an upset- the featured promoter's fighter has to be beaten twice in order to prove that he wasn't supposed to lose? It should be left solely up to the New Champion; in most cases the New Champion would consider a rematch first and foremost anyway because of the financial gain involved. The New Champion should be able to take on the next man in line if he chooses to. In the case of Buster Douglas the rematch never happened partially because of Tyson's woes and there was another commodity that could also command a big enough payday to take the risk of losing the titles. If you can put in a "Rematch Clause" in a contract for the fighter that is supposed to win why not also put a "Rematch Clause" in the contract once again when the second fight takes place. For the guy who pulled off the upset in the first place: It's ridiculous for Promoters to have so much control that they can dictate the next fight before it even happens. It's unfair and unjust. To the victor... You as the victor don't really get a chance to bask in the glory of being Champion for very long before the promoters tries his best to get that title back where it belongs or at least where he feels it belongs. Maybe you fought the fight of your life on that particular night and can never duplicate that performance again against the opposition you faced on that night. But your Reign as Champion can possibly be extended for a much longer tenure, against maybe lesser opposition than you previously faced. The end result when all is said and done is about the Almighty Dollar. So the bait even without the "Clause" still might be too enticing to pass on. Still I would like for the Champion to have his right to choose, you never know there might be a guy that likes being Champion more than he desires having the money from a rematch with a guy that he wasn't supposed to beat in the first place. Now that I got all that out of my system I can talk about rematches, being the subject appears to be the theme of the New Millennium. There is so many I could pick to start with, so I will start with Trinidad vs Hopkins. My view in this case is why? Trinidad was punished from round two until he got knocked out, so realistically Trinidad can't beat Hopkins on skills alone. He's a big puncher and has a puncher's chance. Mosley vs Forrest... This is an interesting scenario, most people fail to realize that Mosley too was totally dominated from round two until the decision was announced. The outcome of this fight should be no different either. Forrest -even in his domination of Shane- still has to prove to the World that it wasn't a fluke, even though this was the same exact guy who defeated him ten years earlier to make the Olympic Team. It wasn't a fluke then and I don't think it will be a fluke if he does it again. It seems as though the fluke would be Shane beating Vernon if you check the statistics, I can't remember when Shane beat Vernon, so why would he be favored to beat someone he's yet to beat? I think Shane is a great fighter and has proven his worth time and time again against everyone except Mr. Forrest. In most cases when a guy gets dominated over the duration of the fight chances are the guy who got dominated will come up short again. I can't remember any guy who got dominated so thoroughly coming back to defeat the guy who beat him; I simply can't find it in my own personal recollection, even as far back as when Joe Louis and Sugar Ray Robinson were fighting, and during those times there were so many re matches. The exception to that rule is when a guy that gets kayoed early can always erase that defeat when it comes down to skill alone. In the case of Rahman vs. Lewis one punch separated Lewis from his title not because Rahman was the better skilled fighter, he just landed that one punch that can change the outcome in any boxing match. Then there is always the third scenario; a great fight the first time out, and the decision could have gone either way. Like the fights between Paulie Ayala vs. Clearance Bones Adams or Johnny Tapia, throw in Morales vs Barrera, Mayweather vs Castillo, these are the fights where the return match is still hard to gauge because you never know if the fight will live up to its expectations. Is one fighter as prepared to put it on the line again as he did in the previous fight or was it just a matter of one man fighting above his ability on that particular night. There are far too many things hinging on the unknown to be conclusive in choosing a favorite. I think that re matches are good when both parties are more than willing to take part in the process without the behind the scenes push of promoters. If you beat a guy once you should not have to prove it again unless you -the fighter- wants to. This is Boxing, not Baseball or Basketball or any other team sport for that matter. It's one on one and the best man wins. On any given night the stars can all become aligned and the fighter that's supposed to lose emerges victorious and everyone involved becomes hysterical, and the only way to get the world back on its right axis is to have a rematch. We must give the guy who was supposed to win, another chance to win, to make everything the way it was meant to be. Brought to you by Saratogamist copyright 2001-2005