Anthony Johnson and Kevin Burns Set for Rematch at The Ultimate Fighter 8 Finale

by Cannon Jacques on Sep 26, 2008 8:36 AM EDT

Fronted by Luke Thomas.

MMA Junkie has the story:

After their first fight ended in controversy, Kevin Burns (7-1 MMA, 2-0 UFC) and Anthony Johnson (5-2 MMA, 2-2 UFC) will meet again in December at the live finale for "The Ultimate Fighter: Team Nogueira vs. Team Mir."

Sources close to both fighters today told MMAjunkie.com that the two competitors have agreed to the fight and that it will be finalized in the coming days.

The Ultimate Fighter 8 Finale takes place Dec. 13, though a location has been not announced.

During their original meeting at a July 19 UFC Fight Night event, referee Steve Mazzagatti repeatedly warned Burns about eye pokes, and a final third-round poke to the eye crumpled Johnson to the mat. Mazzagatti did not initially see the illegal strike, and Burns was awarded the TKO victory.

This is a match that was screaming to be made. After the NSAC was unable to overturn the ruling in the first fight, the only appropriate action was to have these two fight once again. Surely, the governing athletic commission for this bout, the UFC, and Burns' trainers will make certain that Burns has the ability to close his fist before the match takes place. Not only did Johnson unfairly receive a loss in the first encounter, but he also had to undergo surgery to repair his damaged eye. Without a doubt, Anthony Johnson wants a shot at avenging his loss without having to worry about an injury resulting from his opponent's already injured hand.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good find.

by nitro on Sep 25, 2008 10:56 PM EDT reply actions

Excellent.

This is the right thing to do.

I’m really impressed with Johnson that he would get back in the cage with Burns. Dude almost blinded him, a lot of guys probably wouldn’t be able to clear that mental hurdle for a rematch. And good on Burns for doing the right thing and agreeing to it. All that said: Rumble should be allowed Pancrase-style open palm strikes and knee-high boots, if he so chooses.

by Chris Nelson on Sep 25, 2008 11:25 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah.

Having that kind of damage done to your eye has to have an effect mentally. It doesn’t matter how good a fighter you are; your eyes are vulnerable. Eyesight is definitely something most people value highly.

by Cannon Jacques on Sep 25, 2008 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Here's hoping for a vicious KO in the first by Rumble.

I really like the guy’s style and base. His body is amazing for welterweight, and he’ll almost certainly move up to middleweight at some point, if he has enough success.

That fight was a big-time black eye when it happened, and I’m glad to see them get a chance to set the record straight.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 26, 2008 1:35 AM EDT reply actions

I would turn the fight down

After what happened to Johnson the first time, no way would I risk serious injury to a guy that fights open palmed.

by steveoc24 on Sep 26, 2008 1:59 AM EDT reply actions

The way I see it, there's simply no way for them to allow him to make those finger-poke

strikes this time around. There’s simply too much scrutiny on him.

Even so, Rumble can take him down and beat him while they’re on the ground. All that leverage makes for some insane top control skill.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Sep 26, 2008 3:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Great news

Let us only hope that Burns mans up and allows Johnson a free front kick straight to the groin to sort of even things up. If I was a fighter and “accidentally” poked a guy in his eye so many times he required surgery to repair it, I would at least let him even things up and then start all over again. I still am not sure how the NSAC after reviewing that video did not DQ Burns, unbelievable.

by dnevil001 on Sep 26, 2008 8:50 AM EDT reply actions