[Deleted by user.]

A prudent person would weigh the benefits versus the risks of making a decision and choosing whom to fight and not fight for money is such a decision.

 

Boxing ain't a religion. No morals involved.

 

Yes, for some of the reasons mentioned and more. If someone is a legitimate #1 contender in their prime who has beaten other contenders fair and square, but the champion has continuously refused to fight them for more than a year, that is immoral. It's one of the biggest problems in boxing. In no other sport can the champion refuse to take on the best and still be called champion.

The only valid excuses are if the challenger has a shady history with peds, dodgy decisions with favoritism, the champion is held up by ongoing health/legal issues, etc. Outside of that, there is no excuse for the champion not fighting a #1 contender at least once every 2 years unless he's unifying.

If the fans don't mind the ducking, they're some sorry ass fans.

 

The sport itself is basically the law of the jungle, where morals don't exist. There is no morality when a cat eats a rat.
The incident you mentioned was outside the combat zone, an outsider made the immoral act.

 

I don't know if I would use a word like immoral, but the duty of any champion is to prove he is champion against the toughest available opposition.

I used an analogy on another thread. What would the reaction be in the NFL if the AFC champion ignored the NFC playoffs and selected an opponent for the Super Bowl that hadn't earned its spot via the playoffs? I think everyone would consider them cheese champs.

There are many things in life so much worse than ducking your toughest challenger(s) that I wouldn't use the word immoral. I would definitely consider such a champion a cheese champ not worthy of the title he held.

 

This. I’ve known a lot of boxing managers over the years and they all pretty much said shamelessness is an important trait in being a top fighter and staying on top.

 

I don’t know if I’d call it immoral. And I can’t really blame the champions given that the sport itself had made it easier to pick and choose opponents by paying more money overall, providing more world titles to fight for, etc. I think that “ unprofessional “ would probably be a better term for a champion who avoids the best challengers

 

I chose other because it depends.

1) It depends on what’s meant by ‘best’ — because the fighter you, me or the guy down the street think is best might not be most deserving. Like Usyk might have been the best challenger for AJ but he wasn’t the most deserving based on heavyweight resume. And we can also debate what’s meant by ‘deserving,’ but to me it’s the guy who has done the most in a short span of time (be that a year or two or whatever) to EARN a title shot. Some other guy might be considered the ‘best’ but not doing what it takes to earn a shot.

2) Then there’s mandatories. These days a unified champion, to keep holding the belts, has to take turns defending against the WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO top contender who are due mandatory shots. So that’s what he usually does. Sometimes because of this the ‘best’ challenger is sitting at, say, No. 2 in the WBC so he’s going to be fifth in line and if the champ fights twice a year like is custom these days then that guy is about 2 1/2 years or more away from getting his shot. It’s circumstance.

3) Then there’s money and promotional considerations. If a champion can make twice as much fighting someone else, I don’t think it’s immoral for him to make as much money as he can in the short span of years he has as a boxer and shorter span as a champion. It’s business. And there are cases where promoters clash — Eddie Hearn insisting on a clause that ‘if you fight AJ (when he was champ) you have to sign with Matchroom or Dazn for your next X fights’ and that fighter already has a deal with another outlet (Fury with ESPN for instance) … or Don King might have the contenders tied up and the champ is going to have to sign an unfriendly contract that obligates him to King for X fights if he defends against the ‘best’ contender (who King happens to control).

In other words, sometimes it’s complicated.

 

Of course, the whole point of awarding the championship in the first place was to recognize the best fighter.

 

I think Patterson keeping Liston waiting for 3 years was shameful, cowardly- whatever you want to call it.

 

"The sport itself is basically the law of the jungle, where morals don't exist."

Sort of like everything else where there is money involved.

 

Champions can duck a top contender because there is not a really strong infrastructure in boxing. They can do this if they want, and they can make all the excuses that they want, but people and time remember these things and it will effect their legacy (for whatever that's worth).

Immoral? No
Wrong? Yes

 

Yes it is and its hurting boxing in particular heavyweight boxing. A champion should seek out his top three rivals before his career ends or at least two of them. What is going on it the " Champions " are seeking out the unranked, and the old ( over 36 ) for their title fights was to often. don't believe me? Check the age and the good independent rankings of the title fights. You'll find too many matches vs the weak competition and the old.

 

Pride should motivate a champion to defend against the best possible opposition out there. The old cliche of "To BE the best,you need to BEAT the best" applies here.