Can we stop all the ducking garbage!!!

First topic message reminder :

"It was well documented that Jones said he would go no where near mclellan as a pro" ......"If Floyd would get some nuts"..."Leonard was scared of Pryor" "Tyson avoided Lewis like the plague"..."Chicken Bowe".......and so on and so on..

I find it almost hilarious that for the right money these fighters I and you have had the privilege of seeing plus others (from America mostly) would duck anybody!!!...They've all dug deep through wars!!

What they all have in common is a drive to be the best a long with the monetary considerations......They get up for good fighters not run away!!!

Let's start respecting these guys more...they've earned our respect!!!!

Click the title on the post then copy the URL.

You're not allowed to use it against me though.

Maybe he can see the original versions...as they cost the museums so much to buy..they are pride of place!!

Scottrf wrote:Click the title on the post then copy the URL.

You're not allowed to use it against me though.

No promises... https://www.606v2.com/t19803p50-can-we-stop-all-the-ducking-garbage#761007

Oxy I would have to say that Bradley has avoided Khan like the plague, gets peddled about that Witter and Alexander were the consensus number two in the division when especially in the latters case they were not. A fighters perception of the likelihood of losing to a specific fighter can't be judged on those he has fought deemed to be a tricky match, for instance what did Bradley have to lose against Witter? He was an upcoming fighter who nobody expected to win and when he did it was a massive shock, he then takes on Alexander AFTER his awful robbery of Kotelnik at a time Khan had upsurped Alexander as the divisions number two.

I don't buy it I'm afraid Ghosty.

If Bradley was avoiding Khan like the plague - why was he all in favour 1 year ago - preAlexander and pre-the silverdome fiasco? Before he discovered quite how much Shaw was planning on extorting him for?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21/sports/la-sp-boxing-timothy-bradley-20110722

If he's ducking - why fight no-one? Why not fight mandatories and keep your 2 belts? He's chasing Pacquiao - he's been calling him out since at least 2009. If he's "ducking" the p4p #8 to try to secure a fight with the p4p#2 - the term "ducking" needs to be changed.

I still see the fight happening down the line if Bradley remains unbeaten.

This, however, might be harder than he thinks - as Rios is moving up to 140 and given Arum's propensity for keeping things "in-house" - Rios-Bradley will probably take place, likely on the undercard of a Pacquiao fight.

If Bradley beats Rios - especially if he beats him well (hard to do - Rios is one tough S.o.B - his stock rises and a Khan fight becomes more lucrative and a Pacquiao fight more possible. If Bradley loses to Rios - he's blown it.

I'm not saying Bradley has exhibited sensible judgement here - he's clearly furious with Shaw/Thompson - and he's cut off his own nose to spite them both.

However - ducking - carries a great deal of pejorative weight - with a feel of cowardice about it.

The term is overused IMO.

Am loathe to use the word ducking but think it's clear that Bradley has avoided Khan, his legal problems seemed to disappear as soon as Khan was signed to face Peterson while Bradley fought Casamayor. Chasing Pacquiao is high risk high reward while Khan is still relatively high risk low reward in comparison.

Khan will duck Brook imo

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Am loathe to use the word ducking but think it's clear that Bradley has avoided Khan, his legal problems seemed to disappear as soon as Khan was signed to face Peterson while Bradley fought Casamayor. Chasing Pacquiao is high risk high reward while Khan is still relatively high risk low reward in comparison.

Agreed.

Ducking to me = a fighter avoiding a fight for fear of defeat.
Ducking does not equal avoiding a fight because you don't want to give your promoters a huge slug of money and you're busy chasing a different fight.

If memory serves - Shaw/Thompson didn't agree to pay a step aside fee until nearly August as well - so its been dragging on for a while.

Waingro wrote:Khan will duck Brook imo

To be honest Brook has to put himself in the shop window to be honest. Khan has more lucrative options (winner of Berto/Ortiz etc if he moves up), why would he fight Brook who is a relative unknown?

If they were on the same level, with both on/near the P4P list then it would be fair enough.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Am loathe to use the word ducking but think it's clear that Bradley has avoided Khan, his legal problems seemed to disappear as soon as Khan was signed to face Peterson while Bradley fought Casamayor. Chasing Pacquiao is high risk high reward while Khan is still relatively high risk low reward in comparison.

the khan propoganda machine works overtime in the UK, trying to make sure we are all well aware it is every bodies fault but khans team. unfortunately some people accept what they are told too readily, and dont look further into it. khans team have done well, hes gone from being unfairly hated upon, to being nominated for fighter of the year off the back of two wins over mccloskey and judah. i like khan but i also like bradley. bradley has already dominated peterson and alexander, who were unbeaten at the time and khans victories over the past year do nothing that should make him considered above bradley at 140. khans team were quick to point out that they had offered bradley good terms and that they wouldnt be offering them again. they knew bradley was having legal troubles, if khan really wanted to prove hes top dog at 140, he would be chasing bradley right now, now hes available to negotiate, and talking about one more fight at 140 after peterson

alma wrote:Agreed. why fight Brook? He's not a big enough name and unlikely the US would be that interested as Khan is becoming a big name over there it seems. It's a bit like saying Calzaghe ducked Froch, he had bigger fish to fry at the time (Kessler, Hopkins etc)

Agreed.

As a side, Witter was not a big name for a good while yet Hatton has always been accused of ducking him for many a year.
Maybe the same will happen with Khan if they never get to fight...

kevchadders wrote:

alma wrote:Agreed. why fight Brook? He's not a big enough name and unlikely the US would be that interested as Khan is becoming a big name over there it seems. It's a bit like saying Calzaghe ducked Froch, he had bigger fish to fry at the time (Kessler, Hopkins etc)

Agreed.

As a side, Witter was not a big name for a good while yet Hatton has always been accused of ducking him for many a year.
Maybe the same will happen with Khan if they never get to fight...

have to say im getting just a little bit bored with brook, he looks very talented but it seems to be one step forward two steps back. Ndou was meant to be a stepping stone to bigger things, or so we were told to believe, and then he goes and has two fights against weaker opposition. all i keep hearing is his american debut, goes to show the quality of opponent when hes not even worth mentioning. thought warren was holding him back for when the wbo strap became available, but now hearn seems in no rush to put him in with a top fighter either. starting to wonder if they actually believe hes as good as hes been hyped up to be

Lance wrote:

kevchadders wrote:

alma wrote:Agreed. why fight Brook? He's not a big enough name and unlikely the US would be that interested as Khan is becoming a big name over there it seems. It's a bit like saying Calzaghe ducked Froch, he had bigger fish to fry at the time (Kessler, Hopkins etc)

Agreed.

As a side, Witter was not a big name for a good while yet Hatton has always been accused of ducking him for many a year.
Maybe the same will happen with Khan if they never get to fight...

have to say im getting just a little bit bored with brook, he looks very talented but it seems to be one step forward two steps back. Ndou was meant to be a stepping stone to bigger things, or so we were told to believe, and then he goes and has two fights against weaker opposition. all i keep hearing is his american debut, goes to show the quality of opponent when hes not even worth mentioning. thought warren was holding him back for when the wbo strap became available, but now hearn seems in no rush to put him in with a top fighter either. starting to wonder if they actually believe hes as good as hes been hyped up to be

Agreed, it's crazy to think back when me and my mate were raving about him, he's hardly moved on, back then he was going to be matched with Gary Young as the two were big prospects, shows you how long ago that was, i'm sick of waiting also.

Oxy I would say that Bradley has avoided Khan because he knows there is a very very good chance he loses and then has absolutely no bargaining power with Pacquiao. Were he to win he then becomes a more realistic fight for Pacman and at the moment he stands no chance of getting in the ring with him so needs the Khan fight.

Disagree re: "no chance" of getting in the ring with Pacquiao. That's why he's gone to Arum.

Uncle Bob doesn't make deals with goldenboy or with Mayweather - we've learnt that painful lesson for the past 2 years.

That's why Cotto hasn't fought Martinez, that's one of the major reasons why Pacquiao hasn't fought Floyd.

I feel you're underestimating quite how vexed Bradley is with Shaw/Thompson. And the fact that 2 years ago (if memory serves) Bradley was calling Khan out as soon as he stepped up.

IMHO - it all comes down to greed - and if you see Bradley fight Rios - and then get given Pacquiao - well - you heard it here first. Hail me as a boxing psychic won't you

For whatever reason Oxy I strongly believe that Bradley has avoided Khan, he was calling him out whilst still on the up but as soon as he started looking pretty good at the weight all that stopped and every problem under the sun seemed to happen.

Like I said - if its Rios than Pacquiao - credit me with psychic status

But fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion - I just don't like to the term "ducking" - as it implies cowardice - and I don't think its cowardice that stopped the fight happening last summer.

Boxers dont generally duck fights. Their management looks to leach every dime out of them with higher reward minimal risk fights. Bradley had serious management issues and wanted out of it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

this has got to be a joke of a thread. Of course ducking happens in boxing.

The only person who accused Hatton of ducking Witter was Witter,

Witter was after the pay day and his style made for some rubbish fights.

Bradley ducked Khan, he went on radio admitting as much. I believe he was stripped of his title because of this.

....*splat*

Do you still think we should duck garbage?

Briefly back to Bowe-Lewis. I distinctly remember Maloney and Newman cracking open the champagne because the deal had been struck only for Lewis to get in the ring with McCall.....

ian_jamsie wrote:The only person who accused Hatton of ducking Witter was Witter,

Witter was after the pay day and his style made for some rubbish fights.

Bradley ducked Khan, he went on radio admitting as much. I believe he was stripped of his title because of this.

Nay laddie, nay.

Bradley was stripped of his title because it allowed Don Jose to give a title to an old Mexican friend. The WBC have an admitted massive Latino bias.

Bradley made it clear he wouldn't fight until free of Shaw et al. Arum didn't buy him up until July. Khan until July was shouting for the fight - yet now Bradley's free - he's missed his chance? Khan's made the most of his opportunity (until last night) but ducking it isn't.

He had clear and avowed management issues - and to be fair - the amount Shaw was taking from him for sweet FA - he has every right to be annoyed.

Ducking definitely happens. Certain boxers have at times not fancied fighting other boxers. I think it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. I think it's interesting that Truss says it's mostly about monetary considerations. Ultimately I think this is true...so when a fighter considers another fighter to be a big threat to them they demand more money to cover the perceived risk. Essentially fighters can duck others by pricing themselves out of a fight. In this sense there's a sort of ratio between willingness to fight and monetary reward i.e. if you pay someone enough they'd probably be willing to fight anyone. So, some fighters like to take on a challenge from anywhere, and others are more into assessing risks. It's the latter fighters that are likely to be called 'duckers'.

I agree that the term gets used far too often as a means to discredit a fighter people don't like for some reason or another, usually without real basis in fact. This is something that should be cut down during sensible boxing conversations.

Interesting points made above: at what point is a fighter ducking and at what point are their management teams protecting them? I mean, someone like Sven Ottke - there could be no doubt that he avoided fights. To me, for all intents and purposes, he avoided fights because he thought he'd lose them and because he thought he could make acceptable money by fighting people he thought he could beat. That, to me, is ducking, whether it was his own decision or through allowing his management to dictate his career completely. This type of behaviour is ok when building a fighter up, but to do it for an entire career and then retire undefeated? Yes, ducking is an overused term and often an unfair insult, but it does happen.