What damages a legacy more? Consistent ducking or a "loss"

Ducking is exactly what Floyd is doing.

ducking is a fighter making excuses and asking too many stipulations for a fight not to happen. ducking is done by fighter(s) that are too scared to get expose as a mediocre boxer.

Answered something simplistic and "agenda fuelled" like this before. Obviously ducking is worse than losing on face value. Yet ducking can be pretty subjective and these days is the "go to" rant for rabid fans that for some reason don't like a certain fighter. Take Danny Garcia, for example. Before his fight with Matthysse was signed he was subjected to the rabid "duck" chants by people that didn't know diddly about what goes on to make a fight happen. Did he get respect from those said fans for not only having the fight, but winning it? Also, Lennox Lewis was mentioned. Does he have losses for facing the best? He has losses against fighters he shouldn't have lost to in the first place. So his record could well have been unblemished if he hadn't been sloppy at crucial moments against somewhat inferior opponents. Goes to show, having losses doesn't mean you fought all the best fighters, it can mean you had an off night, were overconfident, sloppy or hadn't reached your full potential.

This whole Floyd ducks this guy or that guy is ridiculous and played out. The only guy you could make a real legit case for is Margarito in 2006, which coincidentally is when he split with Bob Arum. Pacquiao and Mayweather, if anyone did the ducking it was BOTH of them. You can't blame simply one guy for that fight not materializing yet. Williams.....don't even get me started.

Ducking....... No Guts No Glory.. Hearns SRL SRR ALi Holyfield Oscar Duran All the greats have fought the best... If you are a truly great fighter, then losses wont effect you in the eyes of the fans... But if you pull a sven ottke and only fight a certain class of fighter, then your legacy will be tarnished

Ducking. A loss isn't so bad so long as a fighter doesn't put so much value into his 0. Anyone can take a loss and bounce back from it. However, if you refuse to fight the top guys for one reason or another, it should be looked down upon. I know there's a lot of pressure that comes from losing because most fans are idiots and disparage any fighter for actually "going for it" but ducking just leaves too many questions unanswered.

A loss hurts more than "ducking" because a loss is real and on that fighter's record. A duck is something in the minds of some fans and often not true at all. Look at all the Khan fans that say Mayweather ducked Khan when the truth is Khan never beat a welterweight and has done nothing to suggest he deserves a fight with Mayweather. A new fan ten years from now would look at the records of Khan and Mayweather and know Mayweather never ducked Khan because fighters don't duck other fighters who they can beat easily.

A great fighter who quite happily takes the fans money, boasts about how much he has then when faced with a real challenge runs to the hills... I call that savage ;(

A loss is worse. Ducking would be worse except for the simple fact that so many people are accused of ducking, when it really happens its just lost in the shuffle. I think fighters realize they're gonna do the time (be accused of ducking) no matter what they do, so they might as well do the crime. There's so many boy who cried wolf ducking-allegations that we can't decipher reality from fiction right now, how can someone ranking the fighters in 5, 10, 50 years? They can't. They just look at the losses. No. People look to see if the fighter cleared out his division. This was easier pre-1980 when a champion was a champion and not a belt holder. Did the fighter fight the best available in his weight class and if not why? Being one of 4 belt holders doesn't make you the best in the division - it makes you one of the 4 best.

Constant ducking while losing to fighters you don't duck.

A loss. Fans these days will defend a duck to the end of days, so a loss is much worse. At least if you duck, there will always be people to talk about what you "would have done" rather than what actually happened.

Every top 10 ATG with the exception of Marciano for the weirdos that put him there have lost a fight at some point in the career. Being undefeated means jacksquat in terms of legacy. It does mean something in terms of marketability, but never in terms of where you are ranked amongst the greatest of all time.

If you have a handful of losses, and tried to avenge them, you can still be a great. Even if you failed to avenge the 'L'. Some guys just have your number. If you're perceived as being pretty with your 0, and you lose, and you fail to avenge the loss, then that catasrophic. If you are percieved as having weaknesses, and duck on that basis, then that's catasrophic. If you're percieved with being too pretty with your 0 (or W / L ratio), and duck on that basis, it might not catastrophic, but that will hang over you forever. Lennox Lewis is an example of a man who has losses but avenged them all.

Of course a loss would be bad for Floyd. He's been ducking for so long already. Losing and ducking would be a bad combination. If you have a handful of losses, and tried to avenge them, you can still be a great. Even if you failed to avenge the 'L'. Some guys just have your number. If you're perceived as being pretty with your 0, and you lose, and you fail to avenge the loss, then that catasrophic. If you are percieved as having weaknesses, and duck on that basis, then that's catasrophic. If you're percieved with being too pretty with your 0 (or W / L ratio), and duck on that basis, it might not catastrophic, but that will hang over you forever.

Ducking is much worse, nearly all the great fighters have a loss. When a fighter loses then rises from adversity to avenge the loss and get back to the top. That to me is the true mark of a champion. yup. this is why we have to see how Broner and Mares bounce back, but lately the majority of hot young champs or prospect who took an L have never bounced back. A true champion can come back from defeat.

DLH is an ATG, he ducked no one, was an exciting fighter, a dominant cash cow, a great boxer, and in his prime would wipe the ring with both Floyd and Manny. He clearly ducked Winky and a rematch w/ Quartey that I can think of.

Ducking is much worse, nearly all the great fighters have a loss. When a fighter loses then rises from adversity to avenge the loss and get back to the top. That to me is the true mark of a champion.

In Floyds case, a loss would be a wrap. Of course a loss would be bad for Floyd. He's been ducking for so long already. Losing and ducking would be a bad combination.

Ducking. Almost all the greats have losses, its because they fought everyone.

So this is like an emotional therapeutic vent thread for Pactards? They still haven't recovered from KO6 I see.