Do you factor this in when considering the greatness and does it affect their legacy

**therealpugilist** · 01-27-2016, 10:20 AM

Myth busters....the fighters of the past even in the golden age of boxing from the 1920s-60s did not always fight the best.....it should affect certain fighters legacies in my book or at least fans and observers should know who avoided fighters and the reasons why.

**therealpugilist** · 01-27-2016, 02:17 PM

90 views but no comments......so many threads and comments about ducking.

These duckers have proof that they ducked but no body has anything to say hmmmmm....

may be a touchy subject but I hold it against every fighter that drew the color line

**j0zef** · 01-27-2016, 04:21 PM

Racism is wrong and has no place in the world, everybody should be treated equally.

But history is exactly that - events in the past. In the past, it was ok to be openly racist. It was ok to deny women rights. Hell, it was ok to **** and pillage whole cities. Was that right? No. But that is what the world was like back then. I'm sure that 100 years from now historians will look upon our current life and think it barbarous.

Having said that, white fighters avoiding African American fighters in the early 20th century has very little to do with our definition of 'ducking'. We define ducking as avoiding a fight, mostly because you don't think you can win.
Avoiding fighters of another race (when racism was everywhere) has nothing to do with the fighters' abilities. It's about built-it, or created, dislike of another race. Again, it has nothing to do with your fighting desire or ability.

A contemporary example is current David Haye/Tyson Fury situation. Fury said he won't fight Haye because he doesn't want to give him a payday after the former screwed him twice. Nobody is calling Fury a 'ducker', just like I would not call Dempsey a ducker.
And I don't even like Dempsey.

**LoadedWraps** · 01-27-2016, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by therealpugilist

Boxing has changed for good and bad, mostly good.

Their is this myth that fighters of the past would fight anyone, any time, and the best fought the best.

If you are a student of the history of the game, you know better.

The Mob ran boxing from WWI until the 50s and a lot of good fighters had to throw fights or beat the best and never got a title shot.

Some even had fights that should have been wins but had one arm band, carried opponents, or if they didnt knock the opponent out it would be a no decision

I personally think the best are fighting the best more often in our era than the pre 1960....everyone gets world title shots nowadays

Im not trying to start any commotion, just asking a legitimate question.

Im not questioning these fighters skills, but their willingness to fight the best

Ducking is one of the major topics on this forum, and for some instances, us as fans dont have enough inside information to know who really avoided who

Back in the day fighters were open about why and who they avoided.

As time goes on, it seems fans care more about how you win, instead of who you beat. Quality>Quantity.......beating good fighters> kayoing no names

Some of boxings legends avoided the best black fighters of their time and do you guys feel it should affect their legacy?

Personally I do. How can you be considered the world champion when you didnt fight the best available competition or some of them.

Do you think drawing the color line should affect the legacies of John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, the welterweights champions and middleweights champions who ducked Holman Williams, Eddie Booker and the black murderers row? Jack Lamotta had the cajones to fight everyone, sodid Marciano....Harry Greb was a beast

People say today this person ducked this person but you'd be hard presssed to find fighters ducking a country or race of fighters

When people say that they usually mean between the 60s and 80s, which is more or less correct. of course not "all" champions/fighters did, but fighters were both more active, and had a more competitive nature which meant they were more prone to want to fight the best around them and politics weren't guilding them toward lucrative safe careers as sometimes they are now.

Before the 60s, you are correct, but that's not really to the fault of the fighters, so you can't really compare a fighter being driven by the mob in the 40s to a fighter who has more control of his own career in todays era, choosing to fight lesser opposition with no real good excuse.

And even if it were flat out even across the board, the fact that we are historically in an era that fighters are much less active means that even if a fighter today and a fighter from say the 40s is managed the exact same way, the fighter of the past still sees better competition by default because of the sheer difference in activity.

So yes, when comparing greatness across eras, there isn't much I don't consider, and I always apply the proper context.

**therealpugilist** · 01-27-2016, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by j0zef

Racism is wrong and has no place in the world, everybody should be treated equally.

But history is exactly that - events in the past. In the past, it was ok to be openly racist. It was ok to deny women rights. Hell, it was ok to **** and pillage whole cities. Was that right? No. But that is what the world was like back then. I'm sure that 100 years from now historians will look upon our current life and think it barbarous.

Having said that, white fighters avoiding African American fighters in the early 20th century has very little to do with our definition of 'ducking'. We define ducking as avoiding a fight, mostly because you don't think you can win.
Avoiding fighters of another race (when racism was everywhere) has nothing to do with the fighters' abilities. It's about built-it, or created, dislike of another race. Again, it has nothing to do with your fighting desire or ability.

A contemporary example is current David Haye/Tyson Fury situation. Fury said he won't fight Haye because he doesn't want to give him a payday after the former screwed him twice. Nobody is calling Fury a 'ducker', just like I would not call Dempsey a ducker.
And I don't even like Dempsey.

I hope things change to the point where our great great grandkids do feel our time was just what you explained

Dempsey was a helluva fighter, one of my all time favorites as a kid. Once I started buying books in my teens and researching turn of the century fighters, it struck a nerve. He was great but a ducker in my book never the less

I watched a rare documentary on Jack Johnson and the fighters of his time and it inspired the question.

**therealpugilist** · 01-27-2016, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by LoadedWraps

When people say that they usually mean between the 60s and 80s, which is more or less correct. of course not "all" champions/fighters did, but fighters were both more active, and had a more competitive nature which meant they were more prone to want to fight the best around them and politics weren't guilding them toward lucrative safe careers as sometimes they are now.

Before the 60s, you are correct, but that's not really to the fault of the fighters, so you can't really compare a fighter being driven by the mob in the 40s to a fighter who has more control of his own career in todays era, choosing to fight lesser opposition with no real good excuse.

And even if it were flat out even across the board, the fact that we are historically in an era that fighters are much less active means that even if a fighter today and a fighter from say the 40s is managed the exact same way, the fighter of the past still sees better competition by default because of the sheer difference in activity.

So yes, when comparing greatness across eras, there isn't much I don't consider, and I always apply the proper context.

great post

AS FAR AS THE 70S AND 80S...there were alphabet belts and the best didnt always fight the best just like today...boxing was a business then just as it is now.....wouldve imagine if we couldve got Ceuvas vs Benitez or McCallum vs the fab 4....VERY good post

**Mr.Fantastic** · 01-27-2016, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by therealpugilist

Boxing has changed for good and bad, mostly good.

Their is this myth that fighters of the past would fight anyone, any time, and the best fought the best.

If you are a student of the history of the game, you know better.

The Mob ran boxing from WWI until the 50s and a lot of good fighters had to throw fights or beat the best and never got a title shot.

Some even had fights that should have been wins but had one arm band, carried opponents, or if they didnt knock the opponent out it would be a no decision

I personally think the best are fighting the best more often in our era than the pre 1960....everyone gets world title shots nowadays

Im not trying to start any commotion, just asking a legitimate question.

Im not questioning these fighters skills, but their willingness to fight the best

Ducking is one of the major topics on this forum, and for some instances, us as fans dont have enough inside information to know who really avoided who

Back in the day fighters were open about why and who they avoided.

As time goes on, it seems fans care more about how you win, instead of who you beat. Quality>Quantity.......beating good fighters> kayoing no names

Some of boxings legends avoided the best black fighters of their time and do you guys feel it should affect their legacy?

Personally I do. How can you be considered the world champion when you didnt fight the best available competition or some of them.

Do you think drawing the color line should affect the legacies of John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, the welterweights champions and middleweights champions who ducked Holman Williams, Eddie Booker and the black murderers row? Jack Lamotta had the cajones to fight everyone, sodid Marciano....Harry Greb was a beast

People say today this person ducked this person but you'd be hard presssed to find fighters ducking a country or race of fighters

Black boxers have avoided black boxers also in the old times. Especially when they won the belt.

Do you factor this in when considering the greatness and does it affect their legacy