Most Shameful Ducks In Boxing History

I've said this in another thread but in the years the Ring did annual ratings in the 1960s and 1970s, whoever has put them online (which is great by the way) have made a fair errors due to the 'group' raking system they used at the time, so a guy rated #5, may be rated that position but in group 2 (not group 1). But in the 80s onwards this isn't a problem at it's a straight-forward 1-10.

 

I think Joe replaced Karl and Ernie due to their losses in the WBA tourney and Joe's continuous wins. I am aware of the claim of Folley as #1 by the way, and brought this up ages ago with Henry Hascup, and IIRC he claimed he was still #2, which i thought he was, and then i asked him if maybe he was 'official' #1 (i.e. with the NBA) briefly hence the claims?

 

Yeah, my memory was also that Henry had him as nr. 2 at the time of their meet and it would be surprising if he climbed after that, good effort as it was,

 

As you say - Folley was ranked #2 by the Ring and #1 by the WBA. The Ring stuck with Terrell as #1 despite his loss to Ali, then switched to Mildenberger for a while, then to Frazier after his victory over George Chuvalo.

 

I thought so mate, I always thought he was #2 but watched so many Ali docs where the voiceover states he was the #1 contender. I could never ever imagine Henry H getting that wrong and i will have that issue of Ring anyway but quizzed him on it to be sure, and he said as you state above.

The thing is, sometimes people assume if a fighter loses he drops below the #2 guy but there's loads of occasions this doesn't happen.

 

Ring annual ratings and the online versions which are not always correct. Here's a sample from the end of 1973 (which i had on me, so referencing this one) using heavies as the sample.

Boxrec online version:

Champ: Foreman
#1. Ali
#2. Frazier
#3. Norton
#4. Quarry
#5. Lyle
#6. Shavers
#7. Bonavena
#8: Bugner
#9: Ellis
#10: Wepner

The proper version (Ring March 74)

Champ: Foreman

Group 1:
#1. Ali
#2. Frazier
#3. Quarry
#4. Norton

Group 2:
#1 (5). Lyle
#2 (6). Bonavena
#3 (7). Bugner
#4 (8). Shavers
#5 (9). Kirkman
#6 (10). Wepner

So the Quarry/Norton rating isn't quite right and Shavers is ranked lower than claimed, with Ringo higher, as is the man who saved loads of children's lives with his great 'crossing the road' advice (Joe). The one who's most hard done by is Boone Kirkman who is top 10, rather than Jimmy Ellis (who isn't). Hard cheese on Booney that is.

 

So Quarry was actually ahead of Norton by the end of 1973? Makes sense really. Norton had done brilliantly against Ali, but that was the only thing that spoke for him over kong time top contender Quarry, who had had a very good '73 himself, and Norton did come off a loss. A very competitive one against a very fit and motivated Ali, but still a loss.

Still Foreman chose him, for less money, ahead of Quarry. Was there anything speaking for this choice, other than that George was understandably wary of what Jerry brought to the table? I know that Foreman has said he had to face Norton because he was his mandatory. Was Norton mandatory with any of the orgs?

 

The thing is Louis could have selected to not fight either of them and he still wouldn't be ducking them.
Lem would have been a better defense than Simon was, that was never contested, but that does not mean Louis ducked him, because he never had to fight him in the first place.
He didn't have to fight Simon either but he did, and because Simon lasted longer than he should have, Louis fought him again. He didn't need to rematch him but it was a charity fight so Louis decided to fight Simon again.

 

Holmes ducked Page
Spinks ducked Tucker,...

 

Game on. at least for one more post.

No, you actually disagreed with me in the first instance with many holes in your case.

I’ve said several times since that you’ve actually proved a number of my points - and you have also failed to address several points, including in my last post.

The Rademacher defence was UNIQUE. I believe you even stated this - but you tried to cast a positive light on it. There was NOTHING positive about it. Repeat, it was uniquely bad.

Highlight to me where you provided a comparable example. Thus far, you notably haven’t.

Instead of purely and simply acknowledging the FACT of the Rademacher defence being singularly poor - you have inexplicably tried to spin it - even into something good - and worse still, suggest that the likes of Stander and Daniels were EQUALLY unworthy.

I mean seriously, that is inane. Your position is heavily tainted for that denial alone and it is relevant that even though it represents as THE softest defence in history - incredibly, Floyd still got dumped on his *** - which indicated a fragile Champ.

The backstory to that fragility were Floyd’s post fight disguises....did any other Champ carry such insecurity around with them? Let the protection continue....

It was dictated (by D’Amato I believe) that Floyd’s # 1 and # 2 fight each other to determine an eligible challenger - then after they did fight, both men were sidestepped.

Floyd should’ve got up off his throne and at least fought one or the other before or after the fact of their fight.

The above ties in with D’Amato’s ongoing protection of Floyd - a protection you disingenuously stated only applied to Liston.

Also disingenuous was your attempt to give Floyd credit for finally fighting Liston - ignoring the obvious FACT that Sonny was stalled by team Cus/Patto prior to and Floyd had no other evasive options left for him when he did finally agree to fight Sonny.

What other fighter had to literally clean out the division and still be unduly delayed before getting his shot? A shot that resulted in a 1st round 1st round KO loss - yes, the outcome is relevant as it goes a long way in explaining the ducking in the first instance.

As far as preclusion and cleaning out the division goes, you have to go as far back as Jack Johnson to compare to Liston - Johnson who fought during an era underscored by extreme racism and exercising of the colour line - that’s how Johnson was blatantly held out.

In his attempts to preclude Liston, D’Amato kept trying to call in Liston’s criminal past, even during periods when Liston had been clean for some time. That was Cus’s own “line” that he tried to draw - the Liston line.

So we have Floyd ducking his # 1 and # 2, avoiding Liston for as long as possible and the other boxing “luminaries” on his record besides - including one Pete Rademacher, someone who you’re actually trying to tout and rationalise his shot at the title. Lol.

You’re not just trying to compare records - you’ve climbed inside Floyd’s record in a failed attempt to write it up as far better than it was.

I haven’t even gotten into possible ratings manipulations -

Technically, of course it can’t be said or 100% proven he ducked Williams - but the obvious point you continue to miss is that, on one hand, you’re arguing for who Floyd defended against whose eligibility was highly questionable while on the other hand arguing against who he didn’t fight - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

You stated that IF Floyd didn’t engage several of the guys that he did defend against, those hypothetical omissions wouldn’t have been considered ducks either.

Think. Floyd should’ve been fighting the very guys whose omissions would be considered unreasonable and/or ducks - properly eligible challengers.

If Floyd wasn’t fighting that standard of challenger, then that obviously speaks for the quality of his opposition he selected and the quality of the opposition he wasn’t fighting.

So, given the whole mosaic, avoiding Machen and Folley, unduly prolonging Liston’s challenge - Williams name also pops up, because he simply was another that Floyd didn’t engage ATOP the others.

You tried to call in Ali’s defence against Lyle to compare it to that of London. Again, disingenuous.

You’re talking second career Ali, older than Patto and Ali fought everyone before and after anyway. Very inapt analogy.

You’re trying too hard to make Patto’s reign seem better than it was and/or comparable to other Champs, including those with obviously more defences under their belts and broader applications of themselves otherwise.

Reaching back to Dempsey and prior pushes into completely different eras of ethics and conduct - you know that.

I don’t even know that there were truly heavy complaints re the periods of inactivity - periods of inactivity that would surely be baulked at a decade and plus later but not as much in Demspey’s day and prior

They ALL did it back then, Sullivn, Corbett, Fitz, Johnson, Willard - inactivity and preclusion etc. - fans were certainly happy to see Dempsey on film or tour - easy $$$ for the Mauler - not that those periods of inactivity don’t still leaves holes in his resume.

So young Floyd made 5 defences (incl. the Ingo loss) in his first reign over about 4 years. Then 3 defences (incl. the overdue Liston defence and loss) in his second reign of 2 + years.

The trilogy with Ingo was a nice dance around but let’s face it, it signalled the lack in Floyd’s game in the first place, as at the time - I personally don’t see how the 3rd match was necessary - Ingo was duly availed of a rematch and lost - time to move on - smack bang into Liston...oh, hang on....not quite yet...

Maybe Floyd’s ring walk music could’ve been ABBA’s Gimme, Gimme, Gimme - okay, that was a joke to lighten things up....

I like Floyd and I’ve objectively defended him on other fronts...and after disengaging from Cus, his career and propensity to consistently engage quality opposition was a whole lot better.

No, I think I’ve already addressed and continue to address what has needed to be addressed. I’m just not particularly interested in having to do it 24/7....

I think we’ve reached a stage where agreeing to disagree might be a good option to exercise.

 

Pedro, if you re-read every post over the last 6 pages you will see that I never once said Louis ducked anyone. It's hard to use such terminology in regards to Joe. What I said was Abe Simon was not a worthy challenger for the heavyweight title and I stand by that. The heavyweight champion does not get a gimme in my book. Not when there are more worthy contenders around. Simon was a sideshow with his size and a pathetic challenger not once but twice. However, my OP on page one is my argument. I do still feel that Jimmy Bivins got the royal shaft when the boys came home in '45. He had beaten 175 lb. champ Gus Lesnevich in a non-title before Gus shipped out and won the Duration titles at 175 and heavyweight while the champs were gone. If anyone deserved a crack at either title on their return, it was him and he was left to rot on the vine. As I said in my OP, I get it, but it wasn't right. Conn hadn't laced a glove up in 4 1/2 years, but that's where the money was. With Bivins it was too little money for far too much risk. Something tells me that MSG and Louis' management would have rather taken your cue and dusted off and wheeled Abe Simon out in '46 rather than fight Bivins. Maybe it could be for another charity show.

 

Every time I try to contact him to complain, McG won’t take my calls.

Who then do I have to contact to complain about that? Do we have an Internal Affairs Unit here?

 

Maybe i need to hit report on one of your posts and in the accompanying message let him know you are seeking him

I'll tell him "Undercover Boss: The Online Edition - Spy on you Longtime" is about to unveil their inaugural episode and you are the planted ESB CEO just to get him cracking!

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/164580378/Eddie-Murphy-thinking

 

The ratings were reinstated when the war was over, for better or worse, and so Conn's ranking as no.1 was reinstated too.
After the war Louis fought only his mandatory challenger each year, which Bivins never was one. In any case, Bivins was comfortably outboxed by a 37 year old Louis.

 

That was way past their sell-by date. However, having said that, I think Louis would have knocked out Bivins somewhere around the 10th had they met in '46. I'm just saying he deserved the shot. Good conversing with you on this subject, Pedro. You're a good poster.