What Constitutes A Duck?

This^.

There's also a fair argument that when a fighter calls someone out /challenges them/claims to be able to KthemTFO and then refuses the fight when it becomes available probably also qualifies.

OTOH avoiding a tough fight for a better payday, whilst disappointing for fans, I don't think should be considered ducking (except poss. in the case of a mandatory). Boxers are after all fighting for a living at the end of the day.

 

I cannot believe no one is even close. Boxing is a sport AND a business, more importantly a fighter fights not for the love of the game (no matter how many want to tell you that) but to make a living. Once people understand that point the only logically context a duck can be made is a financial one. If a fighter makes a move that does not make sense fiscally in either the long or short term . . . it could mean they are duck. For example people say Floyd ducked Margo but the only time it made sense was when he fought Baldy. Both fights would have generated the same payday for him (8mill). However, Baldy had a lot more upside in the long run, he won the lineal title and that was the final piece needed to get the big fish Oscar in the ring (this is the best long term strategy possible). Similarly, Bradley did not fight Khan in hopes of winning the Pacman sweepstakes . . . which has turned out great for him.

If we look at this same financial model, the biggest ducker was Joe Calslappy. He was happy to stay on his side of the pond with his useless trinket, while bigger fish were on the other side of the atlantic, north and south of him in legit divisions art the time. Long term it would have made more sense for him to go to N America (like Pac) and fight the top guys becoming a huge box office draw, Instead he was happy to make a good income (not as great) staying close to home. One could argue that the bros firt into this category. However, they at least tried to make inroads in the N. America Market but were rejected so went to Germany instead. For them this make sense both long and short term and realistically there is no risky fighters on this side of the pond to even be considered a duck.

So do not kid yourself, it all comes down to the bottom line because a fighter never knows how long his career is going to be in the ring

 

Lewis threw away 3 belts in his career out of ducking. THREE.

 

By that time the Belts meant sh!t . . . everyone knew that LL was the MAN. When Bowe trashed his belt it was clear that LL was a huge threat and he would have been a great payday. He was not retiring or unhealthy so he had no excuse. Dumping the belt was a short and Long term financial disaster (you could see that at the time he did it) and therefore has to be looked upon as a BIG duck

 

I take your points but it's significant that you raise the point about both long and short term financial interests. Long term financial interests require keeping your fanbase happy, which may, in some cases require some riskier fights to maintain your credibility. Being perceived to be ducking (whatever they feel it to mean) by your fans could be financially damaging. By this very argument it can be seen that the broader, public understanding of a 'duck' becomes significant even in the terms of the paradigm you've suggested.

What you seem to be saying is that fighters only do not take fights because they offer too little reward for the potential risk - that this is perfectly reasonable and should not be considered ducking. That bit I get, though not totally agreeing with as per the reasons above.
What I don't get is where you say that only making fights that ignore the financial imperative can be called ducks. It is possible there are fighters for whom a decent living is sufficient. Others who have bragged themselves far beyond their abilities. The choice may have to be made for some between a belt with its longer term rewards, and a lucrative rematch - with no obvious way of saying which is the better option.

In fact you seem to imply that a 'duck' would involve taking the less lucrative, but riskier fight - the very opposite of what I suspect most people feel?

In short, your observation, while technically perhaps quite accurate, helps not at all in telling us how to define a 'duck'.

Quack

 

My Webster's dictionary has 3 pics under duck Mayweather jr. Jones jr & Joe Calzaghe

 

For your information Lennox Claudius Lewis was born in LONDON ENGLAND!!! which makes him not only a BRIT!! but a ****NEY to boot. Its time HRH said " Arise Sir Lennox"

 

The fight has to be on the table and have reasonable circumstances

 

Two dead on examples in my life:
1. Bowe dumping a belt in the trash can.
2. Joe Cal's quotes about knowing his limitations and needing the crown jewels to fight Jones.

Those guys didn't even try to lie. They were straight up avoiding tough fights.

Too many things can go wrong in negotiations. I like a quote/action from the fighter himself before I call a blatant duck.

 

:roll: