Difference between boxing and chess = No rematches

If you beat a guy sparring and then he wants a rematch, you have to give it to him. Otherwise, people in the gym won't let you live it down.

However, chess players will often NOT give a rematch.  

No competitive spirit?!

I hereby request from chess.com a separate play format that has a rematch clause for the loser, up to a maximum of "Best two-out-of-three" total. That means if the loser is successful in the rematch, the first winner has a chance to win the rubber match, if he wants it. 

What do you guys say? Would anyone else want that option?

No way.
Nobody ows you a rematch. They can do something else instead: drink, restroom, phone call, game analysis... Also possible engine enhanced revenge is a reason not to grant any rematch.

I’m proposing a separate format, so anyone going in will know what they’ve signed-on for

What about in chess-boxing?  (Yes, there is such a sport)

If you get knocked out in boxing the victor definitely does not owe the loser a rematch. Look at the Deontay Wilder & Tyson Fury trilogy, everyone hates Fury now for dodging a bigger and better opponent in Anthony Joshua after he already TKO'd Wilder in the second fight. 

My analogy extends to chess too. If you get checkmated on move 20 it's the same thing as getting slept in round 5, no one wants to rematch you if you don't make good account of yourself

These boxers and their rematches man. I seem to remember some other dude claiming to be a boxer and demanding rematches somewhere in the forum. Guy even wrote a poem about it, I think. Probably brain damage. Definitely not super Alpha male boxer's competitive spirit like OP would have you believe. Guy is more afraid of his gymbros laughing at him than genuinely interested in a rematch anyway from the looks of it.

I think they had some promotional mandates for wilder fight... and I wanna see fury grab joshua... lel joshua got koed by ruiz lel

Well sometimes it happens ya know even in classical... just some brilliance from one dude ya know... like if its the underdog getting the KO then well you get rematch or a long time dominant champ... if its like those favored fights then the boxer doesn't have much to gain from rematching... looking forward to money fights or better opponents for their legacy

As long as you do not force it on the rest of us, sure, why not.

But I wouldn't hold my breath, people like you are a minority, chess.com is not going to spend money on developing something very few want.

TKO/KO = Checkmate
UD, SD, MD = Resign
D = Draw
NC = (no contest) caught cheating

Thanks

What is “owed” is not the issue. Sportsmanship is. When paired as white in the initial game, (at least in blitz or bullet) it is a matter of courtesy to play at least one rematch after winning. Understandably, a G/30 is different. But if you don’t have five minutes to offer your opponent the chance to even the score, don’t play at all. I wholeheartedly agree there should be a voluntary “two-game minimum” option. Refusing a rematch would forfeit the points of the first game. Walk in to any chess club in the world, play a five minute game, win, then get up and walk away. You wouldn’t be a member very long. The same principle should apply here.

“ But if you don’t have five minutes to offer your opponent the chance to even the score, don’t play at all. “

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Man that is too funny!

Snowflakes……please stop whining about this.
Please.

Isn’t this whining about the whining?