How do you define ducking?

Deliberately avoiding your biggest challenge. Bonus points if Floyd Mayweather calls it a smart investment.

 

Avoiding you're No.1 !

deliberately or through Management, Backers or Boxing's Power Brokers - "Politicking" as LL called it.

it is an absolutely 'blight' on Boxing, the champion(s) and the Boards, sadly it has been done to a good few.

Bad enough as that is, the other part of this that most people don't see or overlook, is that the Contender, is usually still young, they are Just Boys, young lads & young men - their Souls ripped right out of them.

Disgusting, unforgivable really.

Have you ever seen a young man or woman completely overwrought with anguish & hopeless frustration... Heartbreaking.

 

I am not 100% sure on how to define ducking in technical terms, but I think most ppl recognize a ducking when they see it.

Roidelo ducking Benavides.
Fury ducking Usyk.
Fairweather ducking Pac (kinda weird, both sides made a mess of what was supposed to be a great fight).

There.

 

Basically what Canelo is doing with Benavidez.

 

That is the perfect example because it is the biggest money fight for Canelo.
I remember reading about Bobby Czyz and Orlin Norris. Norris accused Bobby of ducking him and Czyz agreed because they were offering him $50,000 for the fight. He said that he was, in fact, afraid to fight Orlin Norris for that much money. He said that if the offer was raised to one million dollars, then he would fight Norris right then and there.

 

Its arbitrary and the whole concept has destroyed the sport with mandatorys. Its a case by case sorta of thing.

The most solid you can get is fighters taking 3 years off and avoiding a clear alternative like Dempsey did with Willis.

 

It is called prizefighting. As a viewer I want the best fights but as a person I understand that if you can take a safer more lucrative path you should for yourself.
Why gamble on glory instead of money? After years of poverty, pain, discipline and sacrifice you decide for 10% of the purse to fight say Jimmy Bivins? for an almost certain butchering and potential irrelevancy instead of say…
A debuting Olympian? Who you know you’ll beat for a lot more money and some upset media? Make all the money you can and get out young is the general idea.

 

It’s as simple as that.

 

There is no obligation to fight the best number 1 every single time. As long as you are consistantly fighting top 10s or undefeated prospects you should be fine.

 

Well, my 2.5 cents worth is that it was very clear that during Patterson’s reign …..kidding Boke.

Not going there atm...I have to observe a reasonable grace period. Haha.

That’s an excellent platform for generic application of criteria you’ve set up for discussion on the subject.

One thing, based on pure technicalities alone, it can be very difficult to concretely prove ducking/avoidance on the part of Champion even if we strongly perceive that it has occurred based on all “evidence” and trends otherwise.

Kinda like “knowing” that certain individuals have been guilty of a “crime” but also knowing that it wouldn’t necessarily hold up in a court under the strict letter of the law.

Re ratings and mandatories, in some instances, they can be manipulated and unjust in their own right, so deference to and satisfaction of same isn’t necessarily always the be all and end all answer to the argument.

Some Champs might satisfy requirements at the barest minimum, a sort of colour by numbers if you like but then, those Champs might pale in comparison to other Champs who proactively sought out their best competition without limiting themselves to simply satisfying the minimal technical requirements.

Even before assessing all the possible motives - (including sheer racism and nothing else), the drawing of the colour line against specific, otherwise eligible challengers, immediately limits the scope of the Champion’s perceived dominance. For me, it’s as simple as that.

For the sake of argument, say we could absolve Dempsey of any blame as to why he had so many inactive years and why he didn’t face the otherwise eligible Wills - it doesn’t matter at the end of the day - it still remains in material terms that Jack was grossly inactive and didn’t prove his superiority over Wills - and that’s gotta impact on the assessment of his reign.

I also hate the excusing lines “He wasn’t afraid of him” or “He would’ve beaten him anyway”.

If those lines made any sense (and they don’t) why even have anyone fight anyone else? - let’s just calculate and project for the best fighters on paper and be done with actual engagements in the ring.

I mean, boxing history reflects that we haven’t ever had a heavily perceived favourites actually lose in the ring - have we?

That’s why Champions must fight and prove themselves rather than have their superiority merely assumed.

If Buster Douglas never fought Tyson he would have forever remained an assumed 90 second victim in most H2H fantasy imaginings - even against an imagined half to 3/4 baked Tyson.

 

Believe it or not but crawford v.s canelo is a much bigger fight than Benavides. May not look like it right now but as fight approaches..the odds will be evenly split more in favor of crawford. Benavides is a terrific fighter but if canelo trains like the old canelo..he beats him by k.o. crawford will however out slick canelo to a wide u.d. if not a knock out.

 

So a guy yet to fight above Welter is going to even money or favorite against a 168 pound Canelo three divisions up?....and beat him widely or maybe even knock him out?

Ok.

 

A champion avoiding his number 1 contender. Avoiding a standout in a different weight class is not a duck imo Therefore claims that Robinson ducked the Murderers Row do not stand up to investigation.