[Deleted by user.]

I suppose it largely depends on the cause of the Champion's duck.

If a Champion's management, in conjunction with the relevant governing bodies, are purposely carrying a fighter for broader and greater financial gain, then the associated actions to achieve this outcome could be considered exploitative and, in turn, immoral.

A Champ's own lack of desire to compete with the best is probably more a question of professional ethics, rather than one of morality.

 

In general, yes. It's a form of cheating as far as I'm concerned. If you claim to be champion, you have to prove it against the best.

 

Maybe "immoral" is not the right term.

But as others already mentioned ducking a strong opponent in an unjustified, systematic and deliberate way, should be rightly considered “wrong”, “dishonorable”, “unethical", etc., especially if the champion has been openly called out to fight.

In any case, it is detrimental to the champion’s reputation and legacy,

Patterson ducking Liston is a good example. His HW reign will always have the asterisk mark: “He ducked Liston for years”.

 

Immoral connotes the intent of evilness, so no I dont believe this to be true.
Does ducking the top ten as a champion defeat the purpose of being a champion? I say yes. Is this frustrating for fans? Absolutely!

 

"Patterson ducking Liston is a good example."

Patterson defended against Liston. Patterson lost the championship in 1959. He regained it in 1960. At best he could have fought Liston in 1961 if he avoided a rubber match with Johansson. So we are talking one year of alleged "ducking" before actually fighting the contender.

This is not only not a good example. It is no example at all compared to let's say Sullivan with Jackson or Dempsey with Wills.

Patterson might have been overmatched by Liston but he didn't duck him.

 

I don’t think so boxing is a business. You’d be insane to hurt yourself for chump change when a beatable guy is there for ten times the money. Herol being ignored for Leonard comes to mind. It’s business, Harry Wills being ignored for easier more lucrative fights, if he’d have looked good vs Firpo he’d have his shot. It’s unfair and upsetting sure, but this isn’t a sport of merit it’s a money game.

 

I also don’t know if particular fans are qualified to judge morals. I mean this place turns Sonny Liston into a saintly philosopher type with a heart of Gold. To quote his own gravestone he was just. “A man”

 

@cross_trainer adding onto my post, the romanticism around turning criminals into deeper men or hero’s is really a poor and sad reflection of folks, it’s been going on forever. It comes from an outside in view almost always, more then anything else. I wonder how many tunes would change if they’d been a victim of that life.

 

Very few can live up to the standard fans place on them. Not even Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Patterson did plenty of ducking. He ducked top contenders Machen and Folley to fight Roy Harris. He ducked #1 LIston to fight Brian London and Tom McNeeley. As champion he was a disgrace.

 

The term immoral for some might denote condition of spirit.

But the term can also simply mean wrong in certain contexts and as measured against the assumed principles therein - and the principles in this case are, of course, those of boxing.

And THE principle is that a Champ should face his most eligible/best opposition.

If he deliberately avoids them for no other reason than the risk of losing - it’s difficult to see how that isn’t flat out immoral/wrong.

In the real world, avoidance for fear of losing is difficult to prove, there are so many valid logistics otherwise that a fighter or his management can disingenuously hide behind.

Ironically, Champs (even their fans) often formulate elaborate defences as to why they didn’t fight boxer a,b or c while in the meantime providing little or no rationale as to why they fought inferior and much less deserving boxers x, y and z.

The beauty of a hypothetical is we don’t have to haggle over the finer details for the definition of avoidance or the motive behind same. Just accept it to be fact in order to move to the more crucial question - Is it wrong?

Just apply whatever fits the bill for you to conclude 100% that a Champ has avoided his best/most eligible challenger ONLY due to the high risk of losing. Just pretend you know this to be TRUE.

Since the avoidance and motive is TRUE, as framed by the premise, then IMO it’s irrefutably wrong.

PS - I’ve played many “immoral” golfers in my day.

Audibly hacking away relentlessly behind the cloak of the woods (where their misguided shot landed) only to see their ball eventually pop back on to the fairway - with said golfers emerging shortly thereafter and claiming it only took a mere 2 strokes to get out of there. Now that’s immoral, I tell ya!

 

With hindsight, given what happened when they did meet, I’d call it ‘wise’.

 

I don’t think it’s immoral but as fight fans, we judge a fighter on whether they compete against the best available opposition.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal values and how a boxer sees himself. If he is determined to make his place in history and go the tough road, I like to think that he will ultimately be acknowledged for that. Fighters who duck their best challengers and, in this era, their best fellow titlists, will be judged more harshly at the end of their careers.

But that is just from a fight fan’s perspective. Boxing is a money business first and foremost and if you can get high money for low risk fights, it’s a no brainer to choose that route, which is why plenty do that now… because they have that opportunity.

Like others have said, I don’t think it’s immoral but it does do a disservice to the sport in my opinion.

 

Stringent third party regulation is the key.

Of course, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It might make sense for a fighter to opt for low risk, high reward, the real problem is that he participates in an infrastructure that allows him to exercise that option.

Another cliche but it lends to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer - and the boxing fans ultimately lose out on the genuine, must see fights or perhaps are not even privy to other talent out there due to the latter being denied their due exposure.

The more fighters are allowed to dictate who they fight, who they don’t fight and when they fight - the more boxing shifts from a sport to business and the pursuit of personal agendas.

Tbh, I think a lot of dedicated fans allow a pass for many less regulated, inequitable features in boxing - simply saying “ah well, that’s boxing, it’s more a reflection of life struggles than a sport, more a business than sport, if you ain’t cheat’n’ you ain’t try’n’”, etc. etc.

Anecdotally, I can say many potential followers are put off by the obvious lack of regulation and inequitable treatments. Viewing boxing with relatively fresh eyes, their cynicism is somewhat justified.

Some of the firmly entrenched, more die hard fans have simply come to accept it and they get what they get.

However, if those same fans follow a fighter they have particular vested interest in and that fighter falls prey/victim to the machinations of the “business”, they will voice their disapprovals and complain about the very aspects that they have otherwise let pass.

 

From a purely sporting point of view and if you think boxing is a sport then yes, it must be the only sport where the best regularly don’t compete against each other especially in the modern age.
However if you see boxing purely as a business then it makes sense to avoid the best to protect the asset or at least until the amount of money on offer outweighs the risk.