What do we define as a "duck" ?

Hey mate it's nothing personal. I think overall you're about as neutral as it gets especially regarding hype jobs, and I respect you for that.

I'm not claiming they're equal perse, but it's a unification fight. You need both parties to make it happen and neither of their promoters were particularly interested in getting it across the line. They seemed more interested on "marinating" while shuffling for more leverage which fell apart when both fighters started losing.

Usyk showed you can force that fight to happen by swallowing your pride and just taking a deal, now he's the top dog.

In regard to it being a 50/50 fight that's just how I see it in terms of skill and ability. I agree AJ has the better resume, but Wilder has proven he can land on skilled fighters like Fury, so to me he'll always have that ace in the hole in a prime for prime match up.

I do understand where you're coming from though.

 

I don't see a world where AJ leaves Eddie Hearn, so gotta agree to disagree

 

I get it.

The issue here, I think, is they don't come too much more hypejobby than Wilder himself... Sure, he got further than most hypejobs - but the gap between what he proved and what hype claimed he was was absolutely huge.

Thing is, it still feels like the two are being treated as basically the same thing here... Yes, you need both - and that means if one avoids it, it doesn't happen OR if both avoid it it doesn't happen.

Or in other words, it isn't automatically true that because it didn't happen, neither of them wanted it...

Looking at the history of both sides, it seems more likely that the one with a history of making unifications and making all the noise about wanting this one? They probably did want it, especially given it was the jewel in the crown to complete the set.

Sure, he has his rights having come up with them and demanded to use them... And proved himself.

I don't really see too much swallowing of pride there - he took the risk in moving up at all and he deserves the reputation that comes along with what he's proved.

Wilder for me represents the flipside of that - he got his belt against a soft opponent and once he had it held all the cards to go out and prove he was as good as claimed... And they didn't make the fights that would've done that... And as a result, he should be remembered for the thin resume despite the tools to try and prove otherwise.

You can see it that way, I just think that's very generous to Wilder given the gulf between their resumes.

I also think you're being quite generous in framing the Fury fights that way - I don't (and some Wilder fans take issue with it).

I think the evidence is fairly clear that the one fight Fury was fully fit and serious he annihilated Wilder who couldn't lay a glove on him... The first he was rusty, unfit and got clipped when he gassed - the third he was fat, sloppy, distracted/unmotivated and had little to no respect left for Wilder as an opponent (and this is entirely consistent with Fury's "fighting down" to the levels of lesser opponents, as he's done multiple times before and since).

I mean, tagging him in those instances isn't nothing, but is it an "ace in the hole"? That seems generous...

 

Intentionally avoiding tough fights due to cowardice or greed.

 

Wilder achieved way more than most people thought he would. Every time he fought the majority said he would lose and offered a variety of reasons why :

'He's hopeless'

'He can't box.'

'He's a joke'

'He telegraphs all his punches'

'He's only got one good punch'

But to the horror and frustration of most - and none more so than yourself - Wilder just kept knocking people out.

Wilder went 40-0 and nearly all by KO and was far, far more successful than most gave him credit for.

That he continues to frustrate you, even in his decline at 40 plus years old, is hilarious!!

 

One of the Charlos just got handed a world title fight he didn't deserve and promptly pulled out. The ink on the fight posters wouldn't have even had time to dry.

 

I also don't see AJ not being a cash cow, so why talk hypotethicals? In the real world, Wilder ducked AJ many times and amitted to it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Because it's unreasonable to expect someone to take a deal that you wouldn't take.

I don't see AJ taking 100m for three fights with the caveat that he fought under a different promotion, so why would you insist that it's a duck on Wilders end? It wasn't an offer made in good faith, and his team would obviously advise him against it the same way AJs would have.

 

Is going up while targeting a weak titlist ducking?

 

There was a clear A/B side in this conversation. Of course A side won't take the deal that B side needs to take if they want to get the fight made. Wilder admitted that they offered him more money to fight AJ, but he still chose to rematch Fury. And, breaking news, Wilder didn't even earn close to 100 million in his next 5 fights, let alone 3.

He wouldn't have fought under different promotion. Wilder was a free agent at the time. The offer was made by DAZN, not the AJ camp himself and both Wilder and Finkel said the deal was legit and genuine, but they decided to go a different way.

 

The difference is...
AJ was already making huge numbers without needing to change promotion.
Wilder turned down the opportunity to make way more than he ever had before.

Or in other words, it's not actually the same at all.

In what sense was it made in bad faith?

Joshua brought 3 belts.
Wilder brought 1.

Joshua was pulling huge ppv numbers and big money.
Wilder wasn't on anything like the same scale.

If you look at it from the perspective of who was clearly the most accomplished and decorated, it was obviously AJ.
If you look at who was bringing the most money into the pot, it was obviously AJ.

To then be offering figures Wilder had never earned and (at the time) nobody else in the division could get anywhere near bringing him?
To be offering disproportionate cut compared with either belt tally OR financial contribution to the pot?
Sounds rather generous to me...

His team advising him against it, assuming that's what happened (as opposed to him choosing to run scared), doesn't seem to have been in his best interests - at least not aside from keeping him in a belt a bit longer...

Yes, it's exactly the duck Wilder admitted to.

 

They literally fired the guy who brought the deal to the table and acted like this was in Wilder's best interest. Deontay, the stupid person he is, believed it.

 

A/B side doesn't mean you have to take a one-sided deal, and it doesn't suddenly make deals made in bad faith legitimate. It was not a good deal for Wilder at the time, and as Wilder went on to have a trilogy with Tyson Fury instead (who is objective a better fighter than AJ) it's not something I would consider as a duck.

If AJs team really wanted that fight and undisputed they should have made a better offer rather than a loaded one. Instead, they focused so much on "hurr durr i'm A side" that he got embarrassed by Andy Ruiz instead.

 

But there was no one sided/bad faith deals offered. They were best offers in Deontay's career. Every offer presented to Deontay was the best deal in his life that he couldn't possibly get otherwise, and that he never got until the Saudis came onto the scene. Fury wasn't seen as the better fighter at the time Wilder declined these offers. AJ was consensus number 1 guy in the division.

 

Where's the bad faith?

Was Wilder worth a 50/50 or even 60/40 split? Not really... And yet he was being offered it anyway.

And yet it was worth far more than anything he'd ever earned before...

The only reason it'd be a bad deal is if he was going to lose badly and with little chance of winning - which you don't believe, I think?

Unless there's evidence that Wilder knew Fury wasn't shot (which few believed until after #1), yes, it's a duck.

It's not objectively the case that Fury is the better fighter, either - subjectively most would agree, but if you want evidence, you're going to find it difficult establishing that as incontestable fact.

Besides, didn't you say Dubois not going back for Parker because he wanted to fight Usyk again WAS a duck? Is that consistent? Maybe I'm missing something...

Considering they were already leaning over backwards and offering Wilder more than he was really worth... Short of offering him full control and more than 50% (lol), I don't see what logic this flies by... Unless you somehow think it was about A/B and Wilder was the A, despite all the metrics indicating strongly the other way?

Or... They moved on when it became obvious Wilder was ducking and wouldn't man up - and **** happens sometimes, especially in heavyweight boxing.