Right here is why I loathe the word duck in boxing. The reasoning is completely subjective. I don't in the least think Marquez ducked Provo but he took less money to fight another guy. Or in another term a smaller prize. You say he didn't duck as well. But you suggest Adonis did duck even though Adonis got paid twice as much for an easy fight as HBO was offering for the future "big" fight. Or in other terms he got twice as big a prize.
So the suggestion is in a prizefight if you refuse a larger prize and accept a smaller prize but you're X it's not a duck. And if you refuse a small prize for a prize TWICE as large but you're Y it's a duck.
It makes it difficult to read boxing boards when people refuse to look at the stuff honestly.(vague comment not intended to attack the quoted poster but speaking in general) There are so many factors going into taking a fight that almost always lead to the highest probability of making the most money. Some might include short term loses, some include selling out immediately. Sometimes you don't take a hard fight because you're good and you slow play it. Sometimes you take hard fights because you know you have a short shelf life. Almost every path leads to the most money in their particular plan though and this duck word is simply false drama and a distraction from what's really happening.
How refreshing would it be to hear a fighter say "I think I can beat X but for only a little less money I'm sure I csn beat Y and that leads to Z who is who I really want to fight" verses "well X has no fanbase" "X can't speak to me like an opponent" yadda yaadda yadda. I'd like to get some frickin truth from somebody. Then we would know their genuine intentions. Does anyone really believe what a fighter says? Or do you then cross reference it in your head with what you know? And if fans reflecting on a sport can't even speak honestly we'll never get truth from the participants.
Bookmarks