Most Shameful Ducks In Boxing History

Boke

Just for the sake of debate.

Firstly, I did say “One of, if not the most...”

Secondly, there are no myths, it’s the facts that persist - you’ve actually reaffirmed the evidence I presented but haven’t weighted it in kind or taken on board it’s significance. The evidence presented was also not exhaustive.

In Rademacher, Patterson granted a shot not just to an undeserving challenger but also to the least deserving challenger in boxing history - a debutant who still dropped him. There are no buts about this.

Floyd chose to fight 3 weeks after his last fight, but then he didn’t fight for another 12 months - and it was against his # 3, not his higher risk # 1 or # 2 and Harris was his only fight in ‘58.

It stands to reason the KD against Rademacher as well other KDs suffered by Floyd would’ve set off some alarm bells at the prospect of Floyd facing punchers.

That belief would’ve been vindicated by Floyd’s later KO losses to two reputable punchers - Ingo (an errant miscalculation) and Liston (nigh impossible to avoid any longer).

To repeat, relative to the joke of a defence that was the Rademacher fight, Floyd also blatantly ducked his #1 and # 2 contenders during his reign. It’s not just the trees to be examined here, it’s also the forest.

Already referenced by another poster - Brian London got his shot coming off a loss - in fact, Brian’s W/L record for his last 4 fights going into the title bout was 2-2.

McNeeley also?

But Williams “barely” gracing the top 10 is enough evidence to suggest that Cleve was only reasoned away due to lack of eligibility when other Tom, Dick and Harrys were getting their chance? I don’t think so.

Again, context and comparative eligibility is everything.

Inside or outside the top 10, I would bet money that Williams would’ve been another guy that Cus would’ve steered Patterson away from.

We can also say “Of course” Liston’s shot was unduly delayed (= avoided) until Patterson finally bit the bullet to fight him - however, prefacing that statement with an “Of course” doesn’t reduce its gravity or the fact of it being another bent tree in the tainted forest.

Until the Liston fight and even upon granting of same, Cus had shown a distinct lack of confidence in his charge, having acutely controlled and protected Patterson prior to.

The follow through evidence was Patterson parting ways with Cus after the Liston fights - obviously to release himself from that manipulative control and open himself up to a properly maintained higher level of competition without “gimmes” or sidesteps.

Also, not necessarily a pass for soft defences but some fighters who have had so called “gimmes” have actually also taken full care of business otherwise - the “easy mark(s)” not being in lieu of otherwise, more eligible contenders who never got their rightful shot or who were unduly delayed in receiving their tilt at the title.

 

Pedro, I have no issue with a heavyweight champion fighting his No. 7 contender. Provided he's a worthy challenger. In no scenario was Abe Simon a worthy challenger. You don't become a worthy challenger by being outclassed or scraped off the canvas. There was no point to a rematch with Simon (actually there was no point to their first fight either, because Simon was outclassed in his previous bout to his first challenge of Louis). Simon was well-chewed and an easy defense against a fighter who had zero chance against Louis. Incidentally, I think you mentioned that Franklin lost his rating by losing to Pastor. Well, that didn't scuttle a fight with Louis. After delving a bit into this I found that Louis signed to fight Simon again the day of the Franklin-Pastor match. Now this wasn't hurriedly scrawled on the back of a napkin. This was clearly in the works for awhile. Which tells me that the result of Franklin-Pastor was irrelevant. Lem was never going to get a title shot, not even if he won. Louis reported for duty after the Simon fight, which everyone was aware of. I know you're thinking I'm besmirching the Louis name, but I'm not. Poor challengers always get to me and it's clear I have set a very high bar in my mind for who deserves an opportunity at the greatest prize in sport.

 

You don't duck someone who barely breaks the top 10 just because he's a puncher and you've been knocked down. So the William's duck is a myth. And you can't just say that he ducked punchers and then say Ingo was a mistake. Ingo had ko'd Cooper and Machen. Williams had KO'd no one of any note.

I'm not sure I agree that Rademacher was the worst ever. Yes, it was his pro debut but he was at least a skilled boxer. Daniels, Stander and Coopman were much less skilful even though they had boxed professionally before.

And for what it's worth, the shot given to London was first offered to Cooper, who had just beaten Folley. Cooper thought it was too little money, though.

An, yes, his defence in 1958 should have been against either Machen or Folley. On that we agree. But hardly the worst ever to defend against your nr 3. Holmes at most defended against one top 3 ranked over the three years after Cooney. Frazier went the whole of '72 without defending against anyone remotely close to the rankings.

And, of course, guys like Johnson and Dempsey went years without any defences at all. As did Fury this year (Ngannou, not only a pro debutant but a debutant to competitive boxing in general, wasn't a defence).

So there were some holes, but definitely nothing outstanding.

 

A breakdown of Patterson's two reigns (going by NBA ratings):

'57 The nr. 1 plus Rademacher three weeks later

'58 The nr 3

'59 London, who I think was ranked, plus the nr. 1.

'61 The just former champion whom he had a rematch clause to, plus a gimme in McNeely.

'62 The nr. 1



For comparison, first Frazier (going by The Ring ratings):

'70 After becoming undisputed he defended against unranked Foster.

'71 The nr. 1

'72 Two fighters nowhere near the rankings.

'73 Foreman was nr. 2.


Then Holmes reign (going by The Ring ratings):

'78'-82 I'm unsure if he ever defended against the nr. 1 at the time. Weaver would become the top contender, but wasn't when Holmes defended against him. Occssio and Shavers should have been top 3 when he defended against them.

'83: Witherspoon was the highest ranked I think, in the lower top 10,

'84 The only defence was against Smith, who was ranked but not that highly. He dropped his WBC belt rather than defend against Page.

'85 Bey was the highest ranked opponent, started the year at nr. 3.

Holmes had many more defences it should be said, but the quality wasn't all that. It should also be said that the alphabet politics made it more difficult for the best to face each other during this era, but after Cooney, Holmes didn't show much interest in doing so. And why a Weaver rematch happened, I don't know.


I could also fill out with others, like Ali's second reign. He managed to face most of the relevant guys, but only faced his nr. 1 once (Norton).

Johnson's and Dempsey's reign had much bigger holes in them, of course.

 

I still disagree - and you’re omitting so much further context that was provided.

Especially the fact that Cus D’Amato clearly tried to protect Floyd in general - thus the later breakup, as I already outlined.

So, you don’t think Cus tried to and did unduly control and protect Patterson? If so, why then, did they part ways after the Liston fights?

You ignored the point re London’s last fight loss and his 50% W/L record over his last 4 fights and just the 1 fight in 58, 12 months after the engaging the completely undeserving Rademacher.

So Cus/Patto were happy to fight the Rademachers, Coopers, Londons and McNeeley’s - and that’s okay but Williams having a shot can be dismissed as completely unwarranted?

Per KDs suffered, Patterson’s chin was brought into question as at the time - that signals potential danger in the face of known punchers.

Williams was a known puncher and Cus was acutely protective of Patto - again, do you disagree with that?

So, inside or outside the top 10, Williams was never going to get a shot - and the trend of Patterson’s evasive conduct as champion supports that belief. Due context.

Yes, of course it can be said that Ingo was a miscalculation in so far as being woefully underestimated.

The Cooper KO was in 57 - obviously that didn’t stop Machen from underestimating Ingo.

On the heels of the Machen win, Patterson and team might’ve viewed Ingo as a one trick pony - certainly also, Ingo might’ve presented as the lesser of other evils already deflected from a shot at the title.

Sorry, but trying to justify the Rademacher defence illustrates an acute bias to allow Floyd a pass in the face of the most extreme example of an inappropriate defence.

So Patterson could fight a pro debutant but avoided BOTH Machen # 1 and Folley # 2 AND unduly delayed Liston in getting his shot.

Gee, with so many omissions and relative contradictions in terms of “deemed” eligibility , Floyd might’ve found himself pushing so far down the ladder of “allowable” competition that it’s a wonder he didn’t trip over Cleve’s name and give him a shot.

Of course, in truth, it is no wonder. A clearly protected reign.

 

This is a great thread so no disrespect but it kinda reminds me of that one famous saying from that one famous poet...

This content is protected

 

Never said it would be wrong to face Williams instead of Rademacher, London etc. Just that it wasn't duck not facing a fringe contender. Not facing any of said guys wouldn't have been a duck either. I thought that went without saying.

I just please want to be rid of the "he ducked Williams". Williams wasn't in a position to be ducked,

You seem to go the 'ol "every guy he didn't face who was better than the guy he did face was ducked". Well, fair enough if you feel that way, but that is something that can be said of just about any reign. So it should be used against others as well then.

Yes, London came from a loss. So did Lyle when Ali faced him. Again, not saying London was a great defence, just not having the bit that what Patterson did was anything unique in general.

And, as I said, Cooper, who had just beaten Folley, was the preferred choice, but he turned the offer down.

Which brings us to what was unique - defending against someone with no pro fights. Again, not a great defence. But for me still better than a Coopman, Stander or Daniels. I'd be more interested in what the world best amateur could do than what the 50th best pro could if such a defence was made today. That's me anyhow.

And, yes, Cus tried to protect Floyd from Liston, but Floyd wasn't having it So? That shows that he wasn't content freezing out the best challengers.

The main reason Liston had to wait was because of the rematch clauses. Yes, he could have gotten the shot later in 1961, but no matter who was at nr. 1 after Patterson was finished with Ingo would have had to wait until next year, I think.

I think the timeline I posted of Patterson's reign compared to Frazier's and Holmes's shows that its flaws aren't in any way unique.

 

Decent breakdown mate and good points on Joe and Larry (especially on the politics) but I hate to cause a potential meltdown with Ali's fanboys but....Norton wasn't #1 at the time of their fight- Foreman was.

 

Some good points here mate (from you and Bok) but i think we have to take into account how long some of these fighters were #1 too- not just them but Lem Franklin as mentioned earlier (if indeed he ever was?). Our Enery was ranked official #1 briefly in 1961, for example, but this was hardly a 'duck' and Big George was ranked #1 in 1971 for a while (although Ali had gone back to #1 by the time Joe fought George).

 

Foreman was nr. 1 when they actually fought, but Norton was nr. 1 when they signed (before the Young fight), I believe. And all you can do is sign with your nr. 1, since you can't know what will happens in the rest of the division before the fight.

 

Machen got the rawest deal I think. He was nr. 1 for quite a bit of both '57 and '58, I think, so there was time to make that fight. But Folley's time as nr. 1 was fairly brief during Floyd's first reign.

And, yes, Floyd can and should be critisised for not facing Machen when there was plenty of time to make the fight, but I just don't put it among the epic ducks.

 

Aah decent point- he may have been as I believe it was signed before George beat Joe again. But this now has to apply across the board for every fighter, surely...but does it?

 

I always try to apply it, but you don't always know when a fight is being negotiated and signed. But you can't demand anything more of a champion than to sign with his nr. 1.

 

Boke

So, you’re saying that several of the opponents Patterson did face could’ve just as easily not been granted a title shot without it being viewed as a duck.

That actually speaks for itself, aka: goes without saying - and it’s not in favour of Patterson for obvious reasons.

Cus didn’t protect Patterson from just Liston - he protected Floyd in general - including from the likes of Machen and Folley -

D'Amato dictated in the first instance that #1 and # 2 fight for the right to a title shot and then falsely reasoned both men out of title title shot.

Patterson didn’t protest the undue delay imposed upon Liston - Floyd eventually “came around” to wanting to fight Liston - he basically had no option - what other excuses could he muster by 62?

Liston had already cleaned out the division - Patterson held out til he was backed into a corner.

Quite simply, Floyd didn’t want to be viewed as a coward - but he clearly feared the worst when the time came to fight Liston. There is actually a 1 + 1 = 2 connection between the undue delay and Floyd’s ultimately crushing defeat.

I think these obvious facts and context warrant more than a “So”?

There’s nothing old or illogical about highlighting more deserving challengers.

The guys a champ does fight are the standard the champ sets for himself - and you’ve basically agreed that Floyd’s standards weren’t high and that he wasn’t facing challengers who themselves wouldn’t have been deemed to have been ducked if Floyd hadn’t faced them.

The idea actually is to face guys that are reasonably eligible - not challengers whose own eligibility can’t even be argued for.

Imo opinion, an average pro clearly has more right to shot than a fighter fresh out of the AMS - whether we find the latter scenario more tantalising or not.

You’ve deferred to ratings re several of your points - but in the case of Rademacher, you’re not fussed re same or how fighters are actually meant to earn a shot. It was unique. Uniquely bad with the added insult of Floyd suffering a KD.

Fair point in so far as Lyle having lost prior to facing Ali - but did Lyle’s granting of a title shot preclude any more deserving fighters who never got their chance? No.

With Ali, everyone got their chance in good time - and I did make that point before that IF a champ could be deemed to deserve a “soft” defence - it would be the title holders who fought all their otherwise eligible contenders anyway. Floyd does not fit that profile - his facing London in lieu of more deserving contenders is a fair and significant point for highlight.

Anyway bro, I think I’ve said all that needs to be said from my end re this.

 

Dare I say, that’s desthpicable! Looney Tunes rock and always will.