How do you define ducking?

Two ways. I define it as avoiding physical contact by the opposing fighter or by avoiding a confrontation of a challenging opponent inside of a boxing ring.

 

WOW!!!!!! Good old Don!!!

 

A few other factors to throw in for discussion.

I think people view “ducks” to be difficult to prove because of the very inequality between what is expected of a title holder vs what is expected of a contender to warrant his being granted a shot.

For instance, are tune ups and so called soft defences really acceptable? Personally, I don’t think so.

The perception of eligibility cuts both ways, and a champs elections and preclusions should be measured side by side.

The irony of tune ups/soft defences is that the clearly more eligible contenders will not be availed of same - their very quality precluding them from the same chance.

If you win the title you immediately assume certain responsibilities to defend against the most deserving contenders and, imo, you should look to work through your top 10.

Tuning up or what not should be done in the gym - not via gimme defences for disproportionate $$$ - defences that are an insult to the more eligible fighters.

This has been the old age problem re alleged ducks - there’s an inappropriate amount of wiggle room allowed for Champs re the opposition they choose to defend against - on the other hand, any contenders making claims for a shot apparently have to have an absolutely air tight case otherwise have their case thrown out of court.

A champ demarcates his own bottom end standard via the worst opposition he chooses defend against - when he does that, it is the champ who leaves himself wide open to the claims of other, clearly more eligible contenders.

The simple answer to that is - keep the spectrum of your own standards tight - including no tune ups and no soft defences.

Tough road to travel? - so be it. You’re the champ, consistently proving yourself over the best is part of the job description and duty statement.

The only scenarios where a soft defence might be allowed a pass is when the Champ has already defended against all reasonably eligible contenders otherwise - or its understood that he will do so going forward (though you’ll never know that for sure in real time).

In that frame, I can only think of Ali being eligible for that “pass”. But still, a soft defence will always leave many more eligible contenders above the guy who was granted his relative, “lottery ticket” shot. Such is boxing..?

I understand that I’ve made some definitive statements here - but I also know that it’s not a black and white subject - I’m really just throwing it all in for open discussion.

Agree, tear it apart, or anything in between - it’s all good. Just try not be dossers or sausages about it. Kidding.