How do you define ducking?

There are times when concision is going to cause an inability to define something infallibly. This is one of those times. I think if you throw your belt in a trash can it starts to look bad and if you draw a colour line, we're getting into a territory that is hard to make look good (I can do it, for irony, but that is irrelevant). I think what I'm trying to say is Pacquiao ducked Mayweather, over not wanting to be drug-tested, as his own trainer has admitted.

 

Ducking (vb): Method of divining witchcraft esp. in medieval Europe.

It's how I met my wife.

 

Watch..and see.

 

For the record..I believe canelo k.os benevidaz..he has no defense but to come forward and his chin is ok..not great.

 

In my eyes it implies some element of obligation to meet the contender.

If this is absent then I nearly always back the fighter being accused of the duck.

 

Actually, ESB owns this thread .

I’ve previously dealt with every reference point you’ve highlighted - as run through my own objective criteria.

I’ll take a lil bite right now, anyway.

That’s a very light brush for scrutiny you’ve applied to Floyd’s reign, might I add.

There is also the colouring via dubious numbers (highly questionable ratings) that I highlighted - but then, in terms of application, there is a lack of uniformity even in that regard.

When clearly better quality contenders occupied those same numbers (rating positions) or near enough to, Team Patterson didn’t want to know about it.

Patterson didn’t fight any where near frequently enough, nor consistently enough against the more eligible, upper echelon, to be afforded any soft defences.

However, he took several, including granting the singularly worst defence in HW boxing history in terms of the challenger’s absolute lack of eligibility.

If a Champ can grant a shot to a guy, Rademacher, IN LIEU of far more deserving challengers - challengers that Floyd never ended up facing - then, yeah, that’s a big problem for him and a clear application of dual standards.

Floyd marked his own lowest standard with that second “defence” and went on to also prove that his higher standard was very limited.

So, one is already on very shaky ground if they argue for and defend Floyd’s “right” to have defended against Rademacher .

Stating that the Rademacher fight was only 3 weeks after the Jackson fight appears to be an implied attempt to suggest that it was okay for Floyd to take that fight. No, it wasn’t okay.

After Jackson, Floyd should’ve allowed for sufficient time to prep and face a far more legit challenger, like (god forbid), at least someone from his top 10 - start the clean out.

As it was, Floyd only had Jackson to show for in 1957, one of two years in which he only squeezed out one defence of this title.

Fighting Rademacher prevented a possible, later defence that could’ve been made in 1957.

The other single defence year was 1958 and it was against Roy freaking Harris whose attainment of the # 3 spot was mind boggling and should be critically questioned.

1958, the same year Team Patterson dodged not just his # 1 Machen (it wasn’t just Eddie as you keep suggesting) but his # 2 Folley also.

Why did Machen and Folley even have to fight each other to get a shot - an eliminator as prescribed by none other than Cus D’Amato?

Patterson should’ve just cut straight to fighting one or the other. Instead he slides past both down to fight Cut’n’Shoot Roy.

After the draw between Machen and Folley, who was D’Amato to say that “neither” deserved a shot? Something very badly up there - but we already know this re D’Amato.

Johansson was contextually obligated to rematch Machen - but both Ingo and team Patterson ignored that binding to grant Ingo a shot - Machen apparently wasn’t good enough
to fight when he was # 1 but the man who beat Eddie was?

# 2 Folley also wasn’t considered good enough but then Cooper was granted a shot after he beat Zora - and I understand that was a highly questionable decision at any rate - UK ref Tommy Little - the ref and sole judge.

Cooper too damaged to avail himself so Team Patterson slides down to London - a loser in his last fight, and a two time loser in his last 4 fights but he’s holding a # 4 ranking? The ranking reads “right”, so that’s okay?

As to fighting Ingo. No brainer there. Floyd himself admitted that he didn’t view Ingo as a risk at all and believed Ingo’s victory over Machen to be a “fluke”. It likely was, in so far as Machen being favoured to win a return match - but Ingo was never going to honour that particular contractual clause -

Did Ingo really deserve his # 1 spot? - at any rate he was considered to be another “softie” - #1 or not, that’s why he got a shot - but, repeat, the # 1 and the # 2 in the year prior did not get a look in.

The Patterson - Ingo rubber was a waste of time and did push Liston back - and the justification of and need for the rubber was questioned as at the time.

It really was a time wasting dance of ineptitude between Floyd and Ingo - and Liston, who did clean out the division (save for guys like Cooper, Ingo and London, the B group, who were never going to fight him) punctuated the point when he finally got his long delayed shot against Floyd.

Team Patterson played and somewhat influenced the system - and it was a very dodgy system in its own right at any rate.

To affirm that conclusion, Patterson himself parted ways with D’Amato, noting Cus’s lack of confidence in him which prevented Floyd from taking the fights he should’ve taken.

Sorry, but in the case of Patterson, the evidence for a heavily protected reign is substantial, imo - and Floyd basically attested to it himself in words and actions, post Liston fights.

Floyd’s own admissions on the matter cannot be ignored but they appear to be conveniently over sighted.

Also, it shouldn’t be ignored that without Cus, taking the fights he should take - Floyd’s post title career recommended him far more highly than his actual title reign did.

I like Floyd a lot too - but I can’t treat him with kid gloves when assessing his title reign.

Okay, that was more than just a lil bite. I might get indigestion.

 

Hey Pug I went to the bank and they said there are no .5 pennies. I explained it was coming from a reliable source but still they looked confused.
Anyway I will keep my eye out for one as I could imagine it would be worth a fortune.

 

Not sure of the written definition but maybe just below it and under Exhibit A- will explain the Bowe and Lewis debacle.

 

Why thank ya kindly for calling me a reliable source - even though I’m not.

I hope you find that half penny all the same - perhaps when you do and fortune befalls you, maybe think of the man who set you in the right direction.

At a total tangent, my parents, when going to the bathroom, used to say they were “off, to spend a penny”.

Made no sense to me except imagining a penny dropping out of their rears. Likely painful and somewhat noisy hitting the old porcelain.

The explanation was that back in their day, it literally cost one penny to unlock the door to a public toilet cubicle.

I don’t know if that covered toilet paper which public restrooms never have. BYO is the ticket.

I also don’t know if this information has made the world a better place for you - but there it is.

 

Ah, the old Reverse Duck Logic. Well played.

 

Hey pug its nothing personal but i have a feeling your .5 of a bot.

 

If I am, .5 of me can’t take it personally but I must say the other .5 of me is a little bit miffed by your comment.

When people are about to say something very personal and none too flattering, it is often preceded by “Nothing personal, but…”.

Hey BoB, nothing personal, but I hate you.

 

Nah, it's str8 up ducking. By any real definition. I don't wanna fight you if I have to be verified to be fighting fair is str8 up ducking. We all know this, Pugs. In our hearts.

 

You are right. I apologize if i offended you.
Fair. The question remains are you .5 bot?