I was thinking about this subject a lot on the subway ride home yesterday. I tried to get it out of my mind, but then as I went for my nightly jog I was still thinking about it. The rematch is such a funny concept to me. Now, I am sure a post like this is nothing new to this blog but I thought I share my opinions on the matter.
When are rematches acceptable? I understand the Edgar/Maynard trilogy completely. That was a log jam at the top that needed to be sorted out. I never understood the Shogun/Machida rematch, I never understood the Edgar/Penn rematch, and for monetary reasons I understood the Lesnar/Mir rematch.
In the case of the Shogun/Machida, Penn/Edgar, and now possibly Diaz/Condit rematches it makes me laugh. One person won the fight. That's what happened. It's a bummer to see the winner then put into this position of them looking like a coward because they refuse to accept a rematch. Well, the door swings both ways. If the guy who lost really is that good then ya know what, take another fight and get back to the top. If you are that good Diaz/Penn/Shogun then take another fight and get back to the top.
Yes trilogies are great, they leave legacies on the sport. I can also see the reasoning for the log jam because then the promotion has time to beef up new stars. I get that. But I for one didn't need to see Sonnen/Silva 2 immediately after the first fight, why, because Sonnen lost. I don't need to see Diaz/Condit 2 immediately, why, because Diaz lost. I'm ok with Sonnen fighting Silva now because he worked is way back up (unless you are Bisping fan, but that is a discussion for another time).
I guess my point of the whole thing is that MMA fans are so quick to jump on immediate rematches. I don't get it, I'm not a fan, and I don't think it is necessary. I know this will hurt my case, but I will still definitely watch a rematch. Take it for what it is I guess.