What do we define as a "duck" ?

It's bad faith because it tied Wilder to a different promotion for three fights, essentially freezing out his team. It's also bad faith to make deals you wouldn't accept yourself. I'm not buying into this A-side rubbish as an excuse, and I don't care how many sponsorships a fighter has. If AJ actually wanted that fight, he could have made it happen by offering a fairer deal. Instead, he got greedy and beaten up by Andy Ruiz instead.

It's not really relevant how many belts you bring to the table when the goal is undisputed. Usyk brought 3 belts to Fury's one. Usyk accepted a 30/70 split, won and became undisputed.

And I'm not making an argument that Wilders team were angels in all of this as well, both were as bad as each other in not making a deal, but I'm a bit sick of this expectation that AJ is the golden goose therefore he can do what he wants mentality.

 

You use hindsight for the offer Wilder received but not for Fury being the better fighter? Be consistent.

 

I'm not using any hindsight - my base argument was, the deals offered to Wilder were the best he was offered in his career until that point. Saying that he never received as good of a deal even after that is just pointing out the irony. But we don't need it to say that Wilder rejected the best deal of his career 3 times, just to not fight AJ.

 

Okay, roles reversed...

Do you think AJ wouldn't accept a way bigger payday than he'd ever got before in exchange for a very short deal with another promotion?

Umm... I think he would.

Except it was already more than fair and in Wilder's favour... Fixating on the ONE element that can be used as an excuse to claim it wasn't a fair deal, when he was already getting offered more than he was worth? Cmon man...

And if Wilder was just terrified of losing and wouldn't fight for any money? No, AJ couldn't make it happen regardless.

Usyk wanted it bad and didn't care about fairness... And Fury brought the lions share of the money - again, it's just not the same.

But that's precisely the point... They very simply weren't anywhere near as bad as each other.

Joshua's team made a more than fair offer - Wilder's team didn't counter with a fairer one, or even a remotely serious one at all, because they didn't actually want the fight.

One side wanted it and offered a generous deal.
The other didn't and didn't.

They're not as bad as each other. Objectively.

You can dislike it as much as you like, but this is basically the way it works - complain, protest, whatever - the guy bringing far more money controls the talks almost every time.

 

As Usyk has shown, if you want undisputed you can't put a price on it on a per belt basis.

If AJ was so confident he would win that same logic applies to him as well.

You'd need to prove that they knew Fury was shot, which is impossible. Wilder could have also taken the draw and moved on with a successful title defense against Fury and just claim he was robbed, but instead he went after both rematches.

It absolutely is. Fury has better performances against all of their common opponents with the exception of Ngannou and is widely considered the better fighter according to Ring Magazine when they were both active.

It was a fight both had actually signed and agreed to, so a bit different to AJ/Wilder where they did not get that far.

What they/you THINK he is worth. As mentioned previously, I don't consider "A-side" an excuse to make bad offers.

Short memory. It was supposed to be part of AJs American debut, with the goal of building the Wilder fight further. It failed, and AJ never came back.

 

And I don't think he would.

The deal was not in Wilders favour. AJ stood to make more money in an undisputed fight and wasn't subject to be bound to another promotion because of it.

Usyk brought more belts, and as you said, "wanted it badly". AJ evidently didn't want it as much.

And I disagree. That's not going to change.

 

Fury was the best fighter Wilder had fought at that point as well despite the question marks hanging above his head (ironically the rematch would lead to Fury's best performance since he defeated Wlad).

AJ got greedy, proceeded to lose his grand American debut to a 30/1 underdog. They're both the losers here, and both of their teams are to blame.

 

@BubblesUK @MaccaveliMacc It has been a good conversation, but I think we're just talking in circles at this point. I respect and understand your opinions, but we'll have to just agree to disagree.

 

Yes, he was, but it only goes to show how weak was Wilder's resume. And at the time, Joshua was seen as a bigger threat to Wilder than Fury.

No they aren't. It's clear from the following the things that transpired, that AJ's camp wanted the fight and Wilder's camp didn't. Deontay ducked AJ and admitted it.

 

They're basically bots, fella. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these AJ fanboy accounts were AI. You can present them with as many rational, unbiased, reasonable points as you want and they'll insist that someone ducked their wildly beatable cash cow hero.

Prizefighters are always ducking cash cows that can be out boxed, out worked, and chinned with poor recovery skills.

It's always happening. Like Canelo with a worse chin - no one would fight him.

 

According to Webster and urban dictionary, 'duck' refers to Floyd Joy Sinclair Mayweather Junior 2008 onwards. Other shameless examples include but are not limited to Saul Canelo Alvarez, Riddick Bowe; however Floyd Joy Sinclair Mayweather Junior is widely considered the definition of duck for doing it the longest and even passing it onto other generations ie. Gervonta Davis.