Tito v Rashad 2 and MMA's new sense of entitlement
With the prospect of Tito not fighting Rashad in his next fight, i've noticed some people are upset about that and feel Rashad is being short changed. My question is, do people really want to see this fight? I'll be one of many to say that i have absolutely no desire to see these two guys fight again...why on earth would i? The first one was candidate for worst fight of the year.
I think more and more these days we're getting caught up in the idea that fighters have to "finish business" or "avenge losses" when in reality - that's all side show bullcrap as far as im concerned. Do i really care if someone has a draw or a no contest on thier record? No. Plenty of fighters have "unavenged losses" as well as draws and no contests.
Why the sense of entitlement recently? You don't deserve to "avenge losses" unless you're a long time champ, and you certainly don't deserve to take a mulligan because you had a crap fight that no one won. Does Diaz deserve another go at Gomi because he tested positive and had his win overturned into a no contest? Ofcourse not. In Tito and Rashad's case, they were matched up because they got on the same track at the same time, and people thought it would be an entertaining fight. It wasn't. It sucked. Lets deal with it and move on to other matchups for them that might be better. Rashad doesn't need to beat Tito to advance his career, and Tito doesn't need to beat Rashad to keep his going. It's absurd to put them together again when it's clear it's going to suck again just to satisfy some misplaced need for closure.
I'm for entertaining matchups, which they're not. Im assuming most of you are too. In that vein, why again do we need to see them face off? So they can sleep better at night? F that. Feed Tito to Wandy, and Rashad to Shogun and lets all move on with our lives shall we?
Demian Maia may be the Fred Astaire of jiu-jitsu, but it’s too bad Silva is the Gene Kelly of kicking everyone’s ass.
Last edited by Flak; 10-01-2007 at 05:11 PM.