How do you define ducking?

I understand and appreciate your thoughts.

Not at all long winded - but I can be.

Yes, the term duck can be very loaded yet poorly defined at the same time.

Also, to defend against or support a claim of ducking can naturally sometimes take very detailed qualifications and explanations.

I understand the singular money motives, but like @Dynamicpuncher , I don’t hold that as an excuse for overlooking/ignoring otherwise more eligible contenders - it merely qualifies the reason for avoidance - but the fact of avoidance remains.

When it’s properly framed, you could also say that certain contenders ducked other contenders - even though there is the suggestion that they need not necessarily cross paths.

However, it was D’Amato (I think - I could be wrong) who required the # 1 and # 2 to face off to decide who would get a shot at the title.

Perhaps there should be some requirements that contenders sort it out between themselves - to a degree, - at least that seems to have played out like an unwritten law during some reigns - but certainly not so much so that the Champ sits back and ends up not fighting a reasonable portion of his reliably static top 10.

We know Jim Wicks/Cooper wanted nothing to do with Liston. So Cooper could go on his merry way, trying build a resume sufficient (sans Liston) to place him in a ratings position to be granted a title shot.

Was Cooper ever technically obligated to fight Liston? Perhaps not but per his manager’s admission, we know it wouldn’t have ever happened - so, duly qualified, I would say Cooper “avoided” Liston or was predisposed to avoiding Liston. I’ll even invoke the term “ducked”.

Same goes for Ingo, who it seems also, was never ever going to fight Liston - voluntarily or by requirement.

With mindsets like that among contenders, the as and when deductive infrastructure that the top 10 should be doesn’t work so well - with some rankings being highly misrepresentative of the actual resumes.

Just imo, and it was happenstance I guess, but Jerry Quarry ran block on several contenders who Frazier might’ve faced at some point. Say Lyle and Shavers for instance.

Jerry goes the hard yards but Joe only has to then face Jerry to inherit his partial clean up of the division.

Again, no aspersions on Joe - but two fights a piece vs both Quarry and Ellis - but no Lyle or Shavers on his resume?

Of course Quarry fought both of them (Lyle and Shavers) and Ellis one of them (Shavers).

Not saying Joe wouldn’t have beaten them - but that’s the thing, you really only know one fighter can beat another when he actually proves it in the ring. There can also be damage incurred when providing those proofs - damage other contenders/champions are spared from.

I don’t overrate Jerry but I give him max. credit for his propensity to fight one and all.

And to afford Quarry due credit for the coverage of his resume, contenders or even Champions who didn’t cover off as he did should be duly highlighted.

A sport like tennis obviously has a fare more rigid, equitable and deductive infrastructure. As such, through the rounds, it can ultimately lead to less compelling, less popular finals matches - but it works exactly as it should.

Imagine the more popular, must see match ups being the basis for dictating who plays who for the given title up for grabs?

Tennis would become laughable as an alleged “sport”. Suffice to say, boxing is a lot different and a lot less of a sport (in terms of deductive infrastructure and due obligations) than other organised athletic competitions.

Totally understand if you dropped off after the first 2 paragraphs, Zzzzzz. I almost nodded off once or twice myself.

 

Not at all, Pugguy. Outstanding piece. The only thing I'll correct you on is that Lyle also beat Ellis.

 

Cheers Scar. Quite right there re my incorrect omission of Lyle vs Ellis. Thanks.

 

Some nice insights in your post as usual. I found the Armstrong comments extremely interesting.

Just as an aside without talking ducking i'll note that Boza was deeeeeep in the mix at the time and actually rated a couple of places above Camacho via the Ring ratings at #2 behind Serrano.

 

I don't really want to bring this up again because I said to another poster I wouldn't.

But Holmes vs Page is a perfect example of that another poster claimed that Holmes earnt more money fighting the likes of Frank, Frazier, etc which is all well and good but does that still make it right ?

I mean using that logic champions could avoid the most dangerous challengers or avoid their mandatories all the time then if you want to use that argument that aslong as they get paid more they can fight easier opposition. I don't agree with it honestly because then we would never get appealing fights.

Sometimes I can overlook it like atm theres a thread with Lewis in regards to turning down a fight vs Ruiz who was his mandatory. But Lewis fought Grant instead of Ruiz which was a better fight and more appealing fight.

 

Excellent even handed analysis and summation Boke.

How about in 72? You’ve correctly highlighted previously, that Frazier only faced two unranked guys in Daniels and Stander during that year.

Allowing Joe one softie, if that, who do you think Joe could’ve perhaps fought instead either of those two?

I can only access The Annual Ring ratings for 1971, issued Mar 72 - 2 names jump out - Mac Foster (big puncher) and Floyd Patterson (respectable puncher) - potential fresh, rated scalps for Joe.

Of course Ali himself fought both Mac and Floyd in 72. Busy year for Ali with 6 fights in that year - atop the 3 fights he posted in 71 after the FOTC.

Joe’s relatively infrequent fighting schedule post FOTC, didn’t see a lot of expansion to the coverage of opponents that he faced.

After the FOTC, Ali added a further 3 new opponents in 71 and while having 3 rematches in 72, he still managed another 3 fresh, new opponents - always expanding the breadth of his competition and domination.

 

John, Boza was actually #1 in the WBC's own rankings. So, bizarrely, they stripped Bobby of his title for defending against their #1 contender for more money. Does it get any more bizzare? That will tell you the sway Don King had with them.

 

Agreed. More $$$ is the explanation in various cases but it certainly doesn’t make it right.

 

Most things called ducks aren't actually ducks.

BJ Saunders didn't want it with Golovkin, I'd say that was a legit duck
Canelo not wanting to "look bad" against Andrade was a legit duck
Canelo/Benavidez is a legit duck.
Pitbull's team saying absolutely not to Shakur was a legit duck (that no one seems to mind despite it being one )
Oscar evading Winky I'd say is a duck
Bernard trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid Chad Dawson, then hopping out the ring injured in fight one then trying to avoid setting up a 2nd one was a blatant duck and run

------------------------------------------------

Crawford declining Boots isn't a duck
Floyd not fighting Margarito and fighting Zab then Baldomir (the actual # 1) were not ducks
Lennox not fighting Byrd or Ruiz weren't ducks
Spence waving away old Keith wasn't a duck (that in particular was payback)
Stevenson and Kovalev not fighting were not ducks (from either side)
Golovkin never fighting Lara was not a duck

It's actually really easy to point out ducks vs. "not" ducks.

note: IMO!!

 

Vitali ducking Byrd rematch , fighting Timmo Hoffman instead.

Wlad fighting some guy called Moli instead of Sanders rematch is the definition of ducking.

 

When I see a stray ball come my way and I bend to make it miss....

That is how I define ducking...like when I played dodgeball..I never actually won that game but i did some Naseem Hamed-type plays in my day ..lol

OH you mean boxing ducking? Well, avoiding a foe is a good definition.

 

Pretty much agree across the board. Most boxers fight someone they dislike. Kov/Stevenson did the opposite. I've always felt Andrade would beat Canelo at 154.