Ducking - bad for the sport but what's more important?

Ducking is wrong, however we all do wrong if we feel as though it may be the right thing to do

Imagine you're a promoter/trainer and know full well of your fighters capabilities, and know that should they enter the ring with a certain boxer and lose... it could stall your fighter (if they're on the come up), or reduce their pulling power and hype (if they're a huge boxer)...

It's a bit like everyone hating a criminal, but if they were a family member you would be more sympathetic and wouldn't even tell on them to the police.

So protecting a fighter? would you do it if you were a trainer/fighter or are you a fully-hearted believer in the best fighting the best and you wouldn't get in the way of any fight? (honestly).

Depends what you mean by ducking.....

Have to clarify it a bit better....

Avoiding a boxer you know is better. L's aren't nice.

Then that equates to the boxer rather than the trainer......

Me I don't think a good boxer thinks anybody is better....No one avids anybody unless the money isn't good enough to justify the risk...

I hate the word ducking Hatton ducked Whitter to take an easier option in the 2 best PFP fighters in the world.
RJJ ducked Calzaghe deciding to fight Bhop and Toney and fight for a Heavyweight title, its garbage.
I think its the most overrated word in boxing.
Spot on Truss good boxers avoid no one they have no need to,if their promoters stop it happening then that's another scenario.

Absolutely nico..goood to see a decent poster on here today

I've no problem with fighters being steered clear of danger early on in their career while they are learning, but if they want to fight for or hold a title they should be fighting the best available, because it's the best that should hold they titles.

If the best always held the titles...the titles would never change hands..

Naturally