BoxRec

Who was the most ducked fighter of all-time?

Here is a list of the most ducked fighters ever in boxing history. Guys that not many fighters would wanted to do anything with them on their way up to the title or being champion:

1. Charley Burley: Is he the most avoided fighter ever? Let's see some evidence. After the beating he gave to Fritzie Zivic, not many white fighters wanted to give him a match, neither a title shot.

2. Aaron Pryor: Rumour has it when he was a lightweight, no top contender of the late 70s and early 80s wanted to fight him. Some people in Cincinnati, OH claim that Sugar Ray Leonard avoided him. Did Howard Davis, Hilmer Kenty, Ray Mancini and others avoided him?

3. Marvin Hagler: Was ducked for years because according to Joe Frazier, he told Marvelous: " The reason that everyone is ducking you is because you got three things against you: You are good, southpaw and black"

4. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles: Was ducked in the early part of the 1960s. lightweight and jr welterweight champs did not want to face him.

5. Dave Sands: From Australia, was a feared middleweight contender.

6. Harry Wills: Did Jack Dempsey avoided him for a shot for the title?

7. Sugar Ray Robinson: It took him more than 70 fights for the Sugar Man to receive a title shot.

8. Archie Moore: At middleweight was ignored. It took him 16 years to fight for the first time a title fight.

9. Jake LaMotta: fought great and solid Black contenders that no white fighter wanted to do with them. Was ducked also for years before receiving a title shot.

10. Sonny Liston: Cleaned up the heavyweight division before becoming champ. Floyd Patterson's management did not want it to do anything with him.


Any other fighters you guys have in mind?

Ezzard Charles at Light Heavyweight comes to mind, never has there ever been or since a dominate fighter at 175 as Charles was, and he never got a shot at the title; eventually moving up to heavyweight to win that title, and is quite under-rated over all.

Sam Langford from 147 to heavyweight, never getting a shot at any of those division titles, though he did face and defeat many of the best of his era. It is unlikely that he would have won the heavyweight title when Johnson was champion, but most historians rate him as the #1 heavyweight to never win the title (myself I think Quarry deserves that nod, but what do I know).

Peter Jackson, for all intents and purposes was on equal ground, if not more so, than his fellow boxers John L. Sullivan and Jem Mace; fought to a draw with Jim Corbett, but for one reason or another was never granted a shot. Even when passed his best, James J. Jeffries always used Jackson as a basis for comparison for every opponent he faced after having a bout with him.

There's a whole bunch, especially at middleweight and light heavyweight, such men as Lloyd Marshall were easily on equal ground with the likes of Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Ezzard Charles, etc, but for one reason or another were never pushed to a shot or were simply ignored, despite their greatness.

Liston was IGNORED intially, but not avoided, as he did get
his title shot. And proved he was superior to Patterson.

Many have argued that he was avoided after he lost the
re-match to Ali because he was 'tainted' yet still dangerous.

Kym

Liston was IGNORED intially, but not avoided, as he did get
his title shot. And proved he was superior to Patterson.

Many have argued that he was avoided after he lost the
re-match to Ali because he was 'tainted' yet still dangerous.

Kym

Just think of it, had Muhammad Ali never had existed or gotten a shot at Liston, that Sonny wouldn't have had another loss until 1969, when he was knocked out by Leotis Martin when he was in his 40's. Had that been the case, maybe Liston, and not Ali, would been called the greatest of all time. Tainted but dangerous...thats an under-statement.

elmersalsa wrote:Who was the most ducked fighter of all-time?

Here is a list of the most ducked fighters ever in boxing history. Guys that not many fighters would wanted to do anything with them on their way up to the title or being champion:

1. Charley Burley: Is he the most avoided fighter ever? Let's see some evidence. After the beating he gave to Fritzie Zivic, not many white fighters wanted to give him a match, neither a title shot.

2. Aaron Pryor: Rumour has it when he was a lightweight, no top contender of the late 70s and early 80s wanted to fight him. Some people in Cincinnati, OH claim that Sugar Ray Leonard avoided him. Did Howard Davis, Hilmer Kenty, Ray Mancini and others avoided him?

3. Marvin Hagler: Was ducked for years because according to Joe Frazier, he told Marvelous: " The reason that everyone is ducking you is because you got three things against you: You are good, southpaw and black"

4. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles: Was ducked in the early part of the 1960s. lightweight and jr welterweight champs did not want to face him.

5. Dave Sands: From Australia, was a feared middleweight contender.

6. Harry Wills: Did Jack Dempsey avoided him for a shot for the title?

7. Sugar Ray Robinson: It took him more than 70 fights for the Sugar Man to receive a title shot.

8. Archie Moore: At middleweight was ignored. It took him 16 years to fight for the first time a title fight.

9. Jake LaMotta: fought great and solid Black contenders that no white fighter wanted to do with them. Was ducked also for years before receiving a title shot.

10. Sonny Liston: Cleaned up the heavyweight division before becoming champ. Floyd Patterson's management did not want it to do anything with him.


Any other fighters you guys have in mind?

Burley--absolutely. I'm glad you put down my guy Mantequilla Napoles. He almost hung it up when Ortiz,Laguna,andLopopollo wouldn't give him a title shot.

Every body is talking about puttng together matches with Mayweather,Cotto,Mosely,Hatton,etc. How about Tony Margarito getting a call? Fighters are going around this guy because he won't back down from anyone.

dagosd2000 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Who was the most ducked fighter of all-time?

Here is a list of the most ducked fighters ever in boxing history. Guys that not many fighters would wanted to do anything with them on their way up to the title or being champion:

1. Charley Burley: Is he the most avoided fighter ever? Let's see some evidence. After the beating he gave to Fritzie Zivic, not many white fighters wanted to give him a match, neither a title shot.

2. Aaron Pryor: Rumour has it when he was a lightweight, no top contender of the late 70s and early 80s wanted to fight him. Some people in Cincinnati, OH claim that Sugar Ray Leonard avoided him. Did Howard Davis, Hilmer Kenty, Ray Mancini and others avoided him?

3. Marvin Hagler: Was ducked for years because according to Joe Frazier, he told Marvelous: " The reason that everyone is ducking you is because you got three things against you: You are good, southpaw and black"

4. Jose "Mantequilla" Napoles: Was ducked in the early part of the 1960s. lightweight and jr welterweight champs did not want to face him.

5. Dave Sands: From Australia, was a feared middleweight contender.

6. Harry Wills: Did Jack Dempsey avoided him for a shot for the title?

7. Sugar Ray Robinson: It took him more than 70 fights for the Sugar Man to receive a title shot.

8. Archie Moore: At middleweight was ignored. It took him 16 years to fight for the first time a title fight.

9. Jake LaMotta: fought great and solid Black contenders that no white fighter wanted to do with them. Was ducked also for years before receiving a title shot.

10. Sonny Liston: Cleaned up the heavyweight division before becoming champ. Floyd Patterson's management did not want it to do anything with him.


Any other fighters you guys have in mind?

Burley--absolutely. I'm glad you put down my guy Mantequilla Napoles. He almost hung it up when Ortiz,Laguna,andLopopollo wouldn't give him a title shot.

Every body is talking about puttng together matches with Mayweather,Cotto,Mosely,Hatton,etc. How about Tony Margarito getting a call? Fighters are going around this guy because he won't back down from anyone.

True, poor Tony has been calling out people for years, from De La Hoya to Mosley to Mayorga to Zab Judah and now all the guys you mentioned... but I hardly hear Williams' name spoken with any enthusiasm by champs and contenders around 147 either.

Joan Guzman has been ducked for years though, he got ducked at 122 by pretty much everyone, then at 126, and now at 130 he finally got two good top fighters in Barrios and Soto to fight him, but Marquez, Pacquiao, Valero, and others don't exactly seem too eager to jump in with him. Michael Katsidis didn't seem to mind but I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Katsidis is at a higher weight class.

Christian Mijares doesn't seem to be very pursued either since he schooled Arce.

Holman Williams
Ezzard Charles at 160/175
Harry Wills
Mike McCallum ( Ray Leonard, Hearns and Duran choose not to fight him)
As well as the guys mentioned above like Burley, Langford and LaMotta etc.

Where did the myth that Sugar Ray Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor come from?

My memory maybe playing tricks with me, but wasn't Leonard the welterweight champion at the same time as Pryor was the super lightweight champion?

If Pryor wanted to fight Leonard so badly, why did he not abandon the unfashionable super lightweight division & campaign in the far more glamorous & celebrated weltwerweight division, like Roberto Duran did, from the weight class BELOW his?

Leonard was the marquee fighter of the early 1980's, so it would have been very lucrative for Pryor to jump up & beat a path to Leonard's door.

As good as Pryor was, I think SRL had much bigger fish to fry in 1980 & 1981 & I simply cannot believe that he ducked Pryor.

HomicideHenry wrote:
Sam Langford from 147 to heavyweight, never getting a shot at any of those division titles, though he did face and defeat many of the best of his era. It is unlikely that he would have won the heavyweight title when Johnson was champion.

WHY is it unlikely ?

Jack Johnson certainly wasn't interested in finding out.

Johnson disgraced himself and the heavyweight championship he held by running from Sam Langford and refusing to fight him.

Your "unlikely" comment is lifted straight from Ken Burns and the other clueless "experts" with their pathetic, incompetent agenda-driven prattle.
.

Syntax Error wrote:Where did the myth that Sugar Ray Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor come from?

My memory maybe playing tricks with me, but wasn't Leonard the welterweight champion at the same time as Pryor was the super lightweight champion?

If Pryor wanted to fight Leonard so badly, why did he not abandon the unfashionable super lightweight division & campaign in the far more glamorous & celebrated weltwerweight division, like Roberto Duran did, from the weight class BELOW his?

Leonard was the marquee fighter of the early 1980's, so it would have been very lucrative for Pryor to jump up & beat a path to Leonard's door.

As good as Pryor was, I think SRL had much bigger fish to fry in 1980 & 1981 & I simply cannot believe that he ducked Pryor.

Leonard wanted no part of Pryor.

Pryor tried hard to get Leonard into the ring but no dice.

granberry wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Where did the myth that Sugar Ray Leonard ducked Aaron Pryor come from?

My memory maybe playing tricks with me, but wasn't Leonard the welterweight champion at the same time as Pryor was the super lightweight champion?

If Pryor wanted to fight Leonard so badly, why did he not abandon the unfashionable super lightweight division & campaign in the far more glamorous & celebrated weltwerweight division, like Roberto Duran did, from the weight class BELOW his?

Leonard was the marquee fighter of the early 1980's, so it would have been very lucrative for Pryor to jump up & beat a path to Leonard's door.

As good as Pryor was, I think SRL had much bigger fish to fry in 1980 & 1981 & I simply cannot believe that he ducked Pryor.

Leonard wanted no part of Pryor.

Pryor tried hard to get Leonard into the ring but no dice.

Yeah, right. He ducked him to face soft touches like Duran and Hearns.

granberry wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:
Sam Langford from 147 to heavyweight, never getting a shot at any of those division titles, though he did face and defeat many of the best of his era. It is unlikely that he would have won the heavyweight title when Johnson was champion.

WHY is it unlikely ?

Jack Johnson certainly wasn't interested in finding out.

Johnson disgraced himself and the heavyweight championship he held by running from Sam Langford and refusing to fight him.

Your "unlikely" comment is lifted straight from Ken Burns and the other clueless "experts" with their pathetic, incompetent agenda-driven prattle.
.

Ken Burns....what a ninny.

yancey wrote:

granberry wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:
Sam Langford from 147 to heavyweight, never getting a shot at any of those division titles, though he did face and defeat many of the best of his era. It is unlikely that he would have won the heavyweight title when Johnson was champion.

WHY is it unlikely ?

Jack Johnson certainly wasn't interested in finding out.

Johnson disgraced himself and the heavyweight championship he held by running from Sam Langford and refusing to fight him.

Your "unlikely" comment is lifted straight from Ken Burns and the other clueless "experts" with their pathetic, incompetent agenda-driven prattle.
.

Ken Burns....what a ninny.

Why, Yancey, I am surprised at you.

Ken Burns is a "boxing expert".

Just like Bert Sugar, Thomas Hauser, Norman Mailer, Howard Cosell, Mark Kram, David Remnick, Larry Merchant, Herbert Goldman, Nigel Collins, Steve Farhood, Jim Lampley, etc etc etc.

granberry can we work on "syntax" here?. I know you disagree with some of the most easily recognized folks who comment on boxing. You want to say that they are not "experts". So can we agree that they are "enthusiasts"? They are "interested" in the sport? Though they are as you put it are "clueless" because "YOU" do not agree with them.

AND if it is conspiratorial can you bulid a foundation as to the "whys" and give reason to their as you put it, their "agendas"?

Two questions.

1. Are they simply "lame" thus sort of abritrary,lazy and meandering in their commentary making them rather slothlike and perhaps harmless other than creating confusion OR

2. Are they "ill intended and clever" attempting to subvert and obfiscate the facts for some sort of a manipulation? If so why? What is gained by the manipulation? Money? Power? Influence? The companionship of beautful women? (If the latter where can I sign on?).

BoxBuzz wrote:granberry can we work on "syntax" here?. I know you disagree with some of the most easily recognized folks who comment on boxing. You want to say that they are not "experts". So can we agree that they are "enthusiasts"? They are "interested" in the sport? Though they are as you put it are "clueless" because "YOU" do not agree with them.

AND if it is conspiratorial can you bulid a foundation as to the "whys" and give reason to their as you put it, their "agendas"?

Two questions.

1. Are they simply "lame" thus sort of abritrary,lazy and meandering in their commentary making them rather slothlike and perhaps harmless other than creating confusion OR

2. Are they "ill intended and clever" attempting to subvert and obfiscate the facts for some sort of a manipulation? If so why? What is gained by the manipulation? Money? Power? Influence? The companionship of beautful women? (If the latter where can I sign on?).

Poor buzz will never have a clue.

granberry wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:granberry can we work on "syntax" here?. I know you disagree with some of the most easily recognized folks who comment on boxing. You want to say that they are not "experts". So can we agree that they are "enthusiasts"? They are "interested" in the sport? Though they are as you put it are "clueless" because "YOU" do not agree with them.

AND if it is conspiratorial can you bulid a foundation as to the "whys" and give reason to their as you put it, their "agendas"?

Two questions.

1. Are they simply "lame" thus sort of abritrary,lazy and meandering in their commentary making them rather slothlike and perhaps harmless other than creating confusion OR

2. Are they "ill intended and clever" attempting to subvert and obfiscate the facts for some sort of a manipulation? If so why? What is gained by the manipulation? Money? Power? Influence? The companionship of beautful women? (If the latter where can I sign on?).

Poor buzz will never have a clue.

If only you would use your power for good.....to enlighten....but no, you hold back....a greedy keeper of the "enlightenment". Sad.

Homicide Henry,

IF that was the case, then Liston would have faced other guys and there is a good chance that he would have been beaten by some of the divisions men.

Chances are Frazier and he would have met at some stage late in his 'reign' and I am confident that Frazier would have been enough to Liston.

Jerry Quarry would have offered a good fight and may very well have had the goods to beat Liston.

One could also argue that men like Ellis, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Terrel and Mathis would have given him a tough fight and one of those guys may have upset him.

The reality is that Ali is famous and adored by so many because of his outside ring antics as opposed to his inside talents/ Many feel he was a matyhr, revolutionary, spokes person, pioneer and all that crap that stemmed from the socialist youth of that era. To this day, historians and media love Ali because he is a T-shirt personality. I seriously doubt Liston, who had less charisma than Louis would be considered the 'Greatest' .

What an interesting world that would have been though...

Kym

Britain's two greatest middleweights, from boxing Golden Age; for World Title's, Jock McAvoy the most feared middleweight in the world from 1935 to 1940-41 'denied' a world MW title fight and his British rival and nemisis the most feared & cheated fighter in British Boxing history the Scots/Italian, Bert Gilroy 1939-48...

if I might quote Manchester's Brian Hughes, "Oh to have fighters like McAvoy & Gilroy today!"

Granberry,

The reason I say it is unlikely, is that the Langford Johnson fought was actually in his prime years, and Langford still lost a fifteen round decision. Contrary to urban myth and legend in boxing, Langford wasn't cheated against Johnson in that fight. Johnson won fair and square. And the way I see it, if Harry Wills beat the holy hell out of Langford more than a dozen times and he didnt even have half the skill of Johnson...enough said. Also, Johnson had done defeated the likes of Denver Ed Martin, Joe Jeanette, Sam McVey and many other black contenders multiple times, so you can't entirely say Johnson ducked anyone. Yes, after he abandoned the 'Colored' title claim, he primarily fought whites, but the best way to explain his actions is this: white guys meant big money. While the likes of a 40+ year old Bob Fitzsimmons, hopefuls like Kid Cutler and contenders like Jim Flynn were miles from being great opposition...put yourself in his position. Would you rather carry 100 pounds up a flight of stairs for 50 bucks, or carry 50 pounds up the same stairs for 100?



Robinson,

I can agree with you that had Liston fought Frazier, Frazier would have more than likely won. I don't see Chuvalo or Bonavena doing it though, or Terrell for that matter. Possibly Mathis or Ellis as they were more boxer types. And I also agree, that the Ali legend is mostly due to his personality. Ali was more engaging than most champions before and since himself; as the only 'charismatic' champions in my mind are Baer, Tyson, Foreman (when he came back), and Ali.

But just imagine it though, had Ali never existed...how long would have Liston stayed on the top of the world as champion? When he won the title, most historians, critics and even former champions were sure as hell that Liston was the ultimate destroyer and would reign long...would he, even if Ali had never existed? I can see Liston destroy the likes of Cooper, London, Mildenberger, just as Ali done. I can see Liston run through the Terrell's, the Folley's...hell he already done beat Patterson twice, beat Williams and Machen and many other tough customers.

I think, had that all happened, he probably would have reigned as champion until at least 1967-1968...by that time he would have been in his early 40's and Frazier be in his peak, as was Ellis and Mathis. But even the old Liston was still strong enough to make the Bayone Bleeder say that he was the hardest hitting man he ever fought (Wepner received, also, 87 stitches in that fight).

The argument that Jack Johnson's victory over a 156 lb Langford proves he would have beaten him at heavyweight makes no sense whatsoever. Langford pfp was a big puncher at MW, but that's nothing compared to the actual power he carried with 30-40 lbs of added muscle.

I'll be taken to task for saying it again, but Jack Johnson is one of boxing's sacred cows. And before you fire back at me, just list what you think were Johnson's 5 greatest performances. If you do, you won't see anything there that jumps out at you and says "This guy is one of boxing's alltime greats". For the umpteenth time, fact is Johnson not only avoided the best the HW contender of his day, he avoided the top 3 ! And not only did Langford grow into a very hard hitting heavyweight, but Jeanette and McVey became better fighters than they had been when Johnson defeated them earlier in his career.

HomicideHenry wrote:Granberry,

The reason I say it is unlikely, is that the Langford Johnson fought was actually in his prime years, and Langford still lost a fifteen round decision.

Henry,

Langford weight 156 pounds when he fought Johnson.

If you got your talking point points from somewhere other than agenda-driven "experts" like Ken Burns, you might make less an ass out of yourself.

Langford was not even a full grown middleweight when he fought Johnson.

Later Langford was the most feared heavyweight in the world

and Jack Johnson disgraced himself and the heavyweight championship he held by running for his life from Langford and refusing to fight his most dangerous challenger.

Quoting agenda-driven talking points from Ken Burns is pathetic.

You obviously know nothing about Langford--or Johnson.

Seamus wrote:The argument that Jack Johnson's victory over a 156 lb Langford proves he would have beaten him at heavyweight makes no sense whatsoever. Langford pfp was a big puncher at MW, but that's nothing compared to the actual power he carried with 30-40 lbs of added muscle.

I'll be taken to task for saying it again, but Jack Johnson is one of boxing's sacred cows. And before you fire back at me, just list what you think were Johnson's 5 greatest performances. If you do, you won't see anything there that jumps out at you and says "This guy is one of boxing's alltime greats". For the umpteenth time, fact is Johnson not only avoided the best the HW contender of his day, he avoided the top 3 ! And not only did Langford grow into a very hard hitting heavyweight, but Jeanette and McVey became better fighters than they had been when Johnson defeated them earlier in his career.

Bingo

Sam Langford, Harry Wills.

Wills didn't beat Langford until Sam turned 36 years of age in 1916. Johnson won the title in 1908. That would have made Langford 28. Lang ford's best years were between 1908 and 1910. Johnson should have given Langford,Jeanette,and McVey a shot. Look at it from these 3 guys point of view. Finally a black fighter is given an opportunity to fight for the heavyweight title,and wins! At first black fighters must have thought they had a guiding light. Johnson not only "dished" these 3 guys,but could have opened the door for black contenders to fight for titles. Black fighters during Johnson's reign must have been disappointed with him.