What hurts a fighter's stock more a Loss or Ducking?

I bet you he fills the arena for his next fight In a sport where tickets are given away when an event isn't selling well, filling an arena doesn't mean much. Stevenson stock has severely dropped since the duck move. Before it was "Stevenson vs Kovalev". Those were the 2 names that were linked together for a huge matchup. Now its "Stevenson vs who?" On the other hand its Kovalev who has the momentum now and has lots of buzz surrounding his fight with Pascal.

I looked at the result of the poll and I see what goes around here. Many people must be on that "Ducking is a coward thing and not right" shit. Look, it's true but the question was which one is dropping more a fighter's stock. Quillin ducked Golovkin and Korobov, did his stock dropped? No, it's pretty much the same. LSC ducked Rigo, did his stock dropped? No. Why so many people play the knight of honour here? lmao... Try to see it generally not just by your opinion. You think their stock drops more cause ducking =/= casual fans think this too. Do you really think that if a duck would drop their stock more a businessman like Haymon would make them duck? Casual fans are the target because most of the hardcore fans will watch it anyways and casual fans (since they know very few about boxing) don't give flying fuck about a ducking, they don't even know about it.

Many people thought over the years that Mayweather ducked Manny. Wether it's true or not I won't judge here I'm just sayin that desipte this Mayweather is the #1 P4P (so his stock didn't drop by the critiscs) in the world and he is the biggest PPV draw (so his stock didn't drop by the viewers) in the world while Pac's stock dropped seriously after he lost to JMM bot PPV and P4P wise. I think that's a pretty univoque example fog which is dropping their stock more. You think that Haymon is silly and depite a loss drops less on his fighters' stock than a duck, he still makes them duck? Nah... If a loss againt someone would bring him more money than a duck he wouldn't even have a problem with LSC-Rigo or Quillin-GGG. I don't say it's good but don't be delusional. It's just some hardcore boxing fans who are don't care about fighters who are ducking but most of them will still watch their fight to watch and hope them lose. So their stock isn't drop that much. But if they lose, a lots of casual lose their interest and their stock drops. It's sucks but that's the case.

interesting poll..:)

I will say both Lets say if Floyd loses on May 2nd, he will not be a draw no more cause he doesnt have a fan friendly style, people buys his fight to see him lose Pac has 5 losses but people still buy his fight cause he brings excitement to boxing fans.

It just depends on the fighter I guess. Some fighters can take a loss and come back without hurting their stock while others can't. Some fighters can duck without hurting their stock while others can't.

Ducking for sure.

Pac losing didn't affect his stock. He's still packing thecMGM and pushing 1 million ppv buys in each of his fights. Donaire's loss to Rigo didn't affect his stock either did it? Of course it didn't. Because averaging 1 million buys pre-TKO, and dipping below 500k post-loss is clearly proof that his stock stayed the same. Same thing happened to JMM. His stock was way high after beating Pacquiao, then he almost became an afterthought after narrowly losing to Bradley. What? Donaire's stock plummeted after losing to Rigo, especially with his excuses. Where's Donaire now on the ratings side, and who talks about him? I think you're the first poster to mention Donaire in weeks.

I know when i see a dude laid out on the canvas, or depressed knowing they got outboxed or on a knee from a body shot I often think how this loss does not hurt the guy~. Then I come on here and have my beliefs confirm by everyone giving respect for a solid effort and fight~ While I see dudes getting paid among the best in the sport and think man these guys are sure in trouble.

Cotto's loss to Margarito set him up for that mega fight vs Michael Jennings, and then an even bigger fight vs Clottey. Yep, losses definitely raise your stock. Meanwhile, Cotto is being accused of ducking now and his name just won't stay out of these dickriders mouths :lol1: Pac losing didn't affect his stock. He's still packing thecMGM and pushing 1 million ppv buys in each of his fights. Donaire's loss to Rigo didn't affect his stock either did it?

Both do, but ducking too often looks worst, than not ducking and loosing.

Meanwhile Stevenson lost all the momentum he had prior to ducking the Kovalev fight. I bet you he fills the arena for his next fight

Lol at a certain group getting all emotional as they realize they've spent the last five years going "all in" on something that you'd learn in week one of boxing promotion 101.

Cotto's loss to Margarito set him up for that mega fight vs Michael Jennings, and then an even bigger fight vs Clottey. Yep, losses definitely raise your stock. Meanwhile, Cotto is being accused of ducking now and his name just won't stay out of these dickriders mouths :lol1: Meanwhile Stevenson lost all the momentum he had prior to ducking the Kovalev fight.

No I am not suggesting that at all. Where did you get that from? I posted nothing that should make you think that. You suggested that because Bowe retired and didn't end up fighting Lennox, it was ducking, and if you end up fighting a fighter at one point or another it's not ducking. That's simply wrong, fighters fade and fighting someone year later after their prime is not the same as beating them at their best, so just because you end up fighting someone before you retire doesn't mean you weren't ducking before.

Cotto's loss to Margarito set him up for that mega fight vs Michael Jennings, and then an even bigger fight vs Clottey. Yep, losses definitely raise your stock. Meanwhile, Cotto is being accused of ducking now and his name just won't stay out of these dickriders mouths :lol1:

Alvarado's career definitely picked up after that loss to Provodnikov. His stock skyrocketed!

As boxing fans we have a tendancy to live in a bubble. In the real world, nobody cares about ducking. If they like the guy they will buy his fights.

"Their careers are not over", come on man, so are you trying to argue that the time a fight takes place doesn't matter? Fighters can change a lot in the span of even a year for the good or for the bad, most often the bad. Fighting someone years past their prime isn't the same as taking them while they are at their best. No I am not suggesting that at all. Where did you get that from? I posted nothing that should make you think that.

Bika!:lol1: The guy's not even a real LHW! Stevenson beating up on Bika in lew of the fights he could have had, make him look like an even bigger clown!! Here's an interesting thought on a loss being more devastating to Stevenson, which is predicated on his ducks: What if Bika wins?:cool2: It doesn't even really matter though, perception equals reality and while this negative ducking thing is killing Stevenson now it can be gone in the blink of an eye with Bika laying on the canvas. It is a meh fight it is not that big a deal but a tangible impressive looking win does a whole lot more good than you are making out. He does have to fight better people, so you aren't exactly wrong but he is no worse off in the money he will make or his chances of winning really from when this all started. So I am failing to see the big deal, even in a case where the guy has clearly blown up a lot of good he has done with his career. And if Bika wins then the lolz are on Stevenson no one will feel sorry for him.