Most Shameful Ducks In Boxing History

Patterson is a classic ducking case.
During his reign he ducked so many challengers it reads like a telephone book: Liston, Machen, Foley, Williams, Valdes...

Thanks to D'Amato managin his career Patterson literally staked a claim to be the indisputed the World Dodgeball Champion.

 

Lem was knocked out by Bob Pastor and lost his ranking.

There was nothing to duck.

 

Yeah I can’t believe anyone thinks Franklin had anything for Joe Louis.

 

Quarry may have “deserved” it, but do you really think he’d have lasted appreciably longer than Joe Roman against prime, young Foreman? I don’t and I have always admired Quarry and what he accomplished given the physical tools he had to work with.

IMO a “deserved” shot might not have been in the best interests of the health and wellbeing of the “deserving” party.

 

Prior to Pastor, 1939-1941 Louis ducked

 

Yes, I do think he would have lasted much longer than Roman. In fact, I think he would have done very well against Foreman. This kind of big, clubbing puncher was something Quarry thrived on as a counter-puncher. As he did against Ron Lyle, Mac Foster and Earnie Shavers. It was the sharp, speedy fighters that had Quarry's number. But still, I'm not going to say Quarry would win. Just that he was deserving and I think he would have done very well against one of the most feared fighters. Far better than the fight Roman and Norton provided.

 

But what about Abe Simon? Did he lose his ranking after getting his arse absolutely and completely handed to him by Lem Franklin? How come he got the title shot? He was still picking resin out of his trunks when he got signed.

 

Prior to Pastor Lem held no noteworthy ranking.

 

What about Simon? Louis fought all the top ranked contenders of his reign. Who he fought after that is extra. If a fighter is not ranked no.1 there is no argument to be made about a duck.
Otherwise you can bring up any top 10 fighter of the year who Louis didn't fight and claim it was a duck. You're essentially weaponizing Louis's frequency of fighting against him by saying "why did he fight that lower ranking guy but not that guy who ranked higher?"

Because he can fight whoever the hell he wants as long as he takes care of the best fighters around, which he did.

 

Lyle, Foster and Shavers IMO weren’t in the same zip code of young, prime Foreman. I will concede to you that Quarry deserved the shot, I think he’d have been horizontal within two rounds at most.

 

Yep, you GOTTA Fight you're No.1, especially longstanding No.1's...

NO Excuse for any Champion(s), whether it be Management, Promoters, Investors or Board Interferences, 'Politiking' as some call it, but it is still Avoidance, Manipulation and DUCKING.

 

Man, this is persistent.

Not the best of reigns definitely (Marciano's and Ali's first would probably be my picks for HWs), but the myth just runs amok.

First of all, Williams barely graced the top 10 during Patterson's first reign. It's hindsight that has created the myth that Floyd was ducking punchers whether they were in the actual running or not.

And yes of course Rademacher wasn't worthy, but this was three weeks after he'd done his mandatory defence, so it was really a gimme instead of nothing.

Bypassing the two top contenders in Machen and Folley and going for nr 3 Harris could be seen as a duck, yes. This was the one year he didn't honour his mandatory during his first reign, went for the nr 3 instead.

But compare that to Dempsey who didn't face anyone for three years and who ducked both Wills and Greb for years on end, defending against their left overs instead. It's just crazy to see Patterson as a bigger ducker.

 

A few less talked about:

Spinks of Tucker (quite understandable, but still)

Lewis of Byrd (not the worst either, but he did drop a belt)

Tyson of Lewis

Ali of Foreman, Young and Norton (another defence against Norton was in the talks pre Spinks I think, though)

Frazier of Ali (do think it would have happened if Frazier hadn't lost to Foreman, though)

 

Pedro, I couldn't disagree more. And a lot of that has to do with the era I'm from. There was a time when the heavyweight title was considered the greatest prize in sport, and there are no 'gimme's'. I always had an issue with that no matter who was on the throne. The other weight classes could have gimme's, but we called them non-title 10-rounders. The heavyweights don't have that exception with the unlimited weight, so every fight was for the title and I have always expected there to be a deserving challenger in the other corner. No gimme's. I would object to Floyd Patterson defending against Brian London, who was coming off of a loss. I objected to Ali defending against Alfredo Evangelista, who was coming off of a loss. And they were coming off of a decision loss, so you can see the way I feel about Abe Simon who wasn't just decisioned or if there was anything disputed about the previous loss, but one who was absolutely pounded into the canvas. That fighter is not deserving and has no business fighting for the title. The only green light I would be giving in a case like that was if a champion lost his title and had a contractual rematch clause involved. Today absolute bums are given title shots as one would pass out pool towels. But back then the bar was raised higher and I would have expected more. No gimme's.

 

The bar was raised because Louis raised it.
No champion before Louis were as active or faced as many top contenders during their reign.
You're giving him grief for fighting a lower ranked guy over Franklin but Franklin was never a mandatory fight. He was no.2 for two months.
Louis could have very well beat the no.1 of that year and went on vacation until the next year when he'd fight the new no.1 and he'd have fulfilled his obligation as a champion.
The fact that he chose to fight other contenders on top is an extra. It doesn't mean he should fight everyone from 2-6 if he wants to give the no.7 a chance.