Yeah, but this is sensible management, not ducking. Ducking is something you do primarily as champion, because if you want to deserve the right to call yourself "champion" you should take on all comers. Not throwing a young, rising fighter to the very most dangerous out there is another thing entirely. And Ali did also beat them all eventually (except for Machen).
If Louis had beaten Charles and Marciano at that age he would without a doubt be the best ever. The ironic thing is that he wouldn't he the full acclaim he deserved, since they wouldn't have been rated as high as they are had Louis beaten them. Of course, if Ali had beaten Holmes that would have been something. But Tyson going through all the best of the 90's and then ending with the Klit brothers for good measure ... now that would be some record.
So your saying a fighter can't be accused of ducking anyone pre title? I don't know if I go along with this. Alot of managers steer there fighters clear of dangerous challengers pre title, in fear of losing to them and losing there potential world title shot.
If Walcott had not beaten Charles, Louis would have gotten a rematch vs Charles in Sept of 51. I would have loved to see how that would turn out as louis ALWAYS did better in rematches.
Yes, so then is there no such thing as a fighter ducking someone pre title? does the term ducking only apply to a champion?
Well, I wouldn't put in absolutes, in just black and white. But generally "ducking" is reserved for champions. Only they have the duty to take on the very best when defending their crown. Wasn't it you who made allowances for an aging Wills avoiding up and coming prospects, by the way?
I dont think so. All I said was Harry Wills was 35 years old by 1924 and had been # 1 contender for 5 straight years. He should not have to fight a unproven Gene Tunney or Tommy Gibbons to get a shot at dempsey. He should get a DIRECT shot at Dempsey. He already has more than earned his shot.
I agree, but if he was champion it might be labelled ducking. That's the difference between being a champ and a contender. And as I said, Ali took on most of those guys when he was champion. They had passed their primes by then, but they were from different generations to begin with.
It very much depends on how they achieve those wins. For instance, if Marciano went on to beat Patterson and Liston ('59) and Valdes, Baker or Henry in between, and assuming that said fighters end up with the same legacy as now, i'd say Marciano has a better resume than Ali, based on dominance rather than better wins. Same for Holmes, if he'd beaten Page/Thomas/Coetzee/Witherspoon rematch/Norton rematch. Louis is already close as it is. Beating Charles and Marciano would at least put him on the same level if not over it.