I am saying they are equal. That would be unbiased. You are saying that the one where your guy won is more important. That is biased.yancey wrote:Anyone who thinks the "3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight" is either...Ambling Alp II wrote:Maybe, maybe not. There are many examples of a 3rd fight even though the same guy won the first two.BoxBuzz wrote:Some undoubtedly would. But he would have had to have won the second one, or there would never have been a third fight. Two in a row would have eliminated the possibility of a third.
Let's put it another way, if Frazier would have lost the first the first fight, but won the 2nd, some people would then say that the 2nd fight was the most important.
As for the way that the three fights actually occurred, I guess you could argue that since the 2nd fight wasn't a title fight, it wasn't as important. However, it was a crucial fight for both fighters and more important than most title fights.
The 3rd fight was every bit as important as the first fight.
To say that winning the first fight was more important than winning the 2nd and 3rd fights combined is just stupid.
A. Extremely Uninformed
B. Extremely Biased
or, in some cases, maybe both.
Which fight was more important, Turpin-Robinson I or II? Bowe-Holyfield I or II? Which of the Ross-McLarnin fights was the most important?