Jump to content

Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine


Boxing Spin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sometimes its not enough just to have boxing talent [Ward] and make a lot of money from the sport and get the needed exposure.

 

Fighters with bad attitude [broner] and unlikeable personality's [Froch] get more attention, more money and more press - This means they get paid better pay days.

Are we too harsh on boxers with a unlikeable attitudes and bad personality's? Surely this is just a pantomine appearance to gain exposure and to get that one step ahead of other fighters.

 

And some of the press conference is a bit like WWE, fake and looks set-up. Do you think some of the bad feelings/events at pressers are arranged for the press/public?

 

Sometimes it better to be the bad guy......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

 

Fighters with bad attitude [broner] and unlikeable personality's [Froch] get more attention, more money and more press - This means they get paid better pay days.

 

--- Broner's demographic Haymon tries to attract like and emulate his attitude.

 

Herbie Hide or Don King versions of Mike Tyson are the the guys with bad attitudes. Broner can't crack an egg and is too dumb to be a threat to anyone outside the ring unless he bites them and they have to get rabies shots.

 

I see Froch as a plain-jane vanilla personality outside the ring save for his shrillish wife who attracts all that attention. He sometimes makes dimwitted comments that might get the usual suspects badmouthing him, but he didn't make any money or have the attention of many fans until the Super Six exposure. Fan interest and fight purses have taken off since then because he delivers a fan friendly concussive style on any fighter willing to engage him, travels, and fought the best in an historically significant career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

There's always been a bit of pantomime with boxing promos, I can remember seeing Ali getting up to all sorts of tricks to wind up opponents pre-fight. To be fair to Froch [as I always am] - I dont think he deliberately tries to be obnoxious, he just comes across that way - unlike Haye with his maniacal gang rape spoutings who deliberately provokes controversy.

 

And yes some of the "handbags" at staredowns we have witnessed of late have been stage-managed and don't do boxing any favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

I dislike Froch due to his fighting style, but I have to say I didnt hear anybody criticising his attitude until he fought Groves, and that all seemed to be based around his comments sat ringside after the first one rather than anything he said since. For my money Groves came across as a much bigger twat from both those fights. It didnt do the sport any favours watching a grown man turn to another and say "are you gonna cry?" Its not the play ground.

 

Back on topic, the fact is it works and thats why it happens. Whether its real or fake, it gets people watching. Whether thats good or bad, I suppose thats up to individuals and their moral outlook on life. I personally dont like seeing someone like Broner (who always portrays the bad guy) earning multi million dollar paydays based on the fact that he sets money alight, rather than his accomplishments in the ring.

 

With regards to boxers with questionable attitudes being an act, yeah sure in some cases but then you have the Mayweathers of this world who will tell you its an act whilst having multiple arrests for laying his hands on women. Has served jail time for laying his hands on a woman. Makes numerous racist comments before having to take them down from the social media sites he uses etc. etc. Thats a man who will tell you its a character when truthfully he is just a scumbag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

Back on topic, the fact is it works and thats why it happens. Whether its real or fake, it gets people watching. Whether thats good or bad, I suppose thats up to individuals and their moral outlook on life. I personally dont like seeing someone like Broner (who always portrays the bad guy) earning multi million dollar paydays based on the fact that he sets money alight, rather than his accomplishments in the ring.

 

It reallys does work and it reminds me of some messages I have read on Facebook.

 

Example: "I've bought tickets for _______ vs ________ who else is fighting?" or "I've bought tickets for _______ vs ________ who is on the undercard?"

 

If you are a boxing fan and are buying tickets for a fight one of the first things you do it look up who else is fighting.

 

So the hype, attitudes, negativity surrounding a fight is getting non boxing fans buying tickets or semi interested boxing fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

As a society we are more concerned about personality, back story and looks than talent, not just in boxing but most other facets of our life. It's why shows like the X Factor and Britain's got talent are so freakin' popular. Some of us like the "badboys", others like the "girl next door" but we all enjoy some sort of interesting story. Be it "inspired by dead granny when I was 6" to "bank robber turns saint".

 

Look at Luis Suarez at Liverpool. Fans of other times despise him for his actions on the pitch-"bad boy, we hate him, ban him for life" whilst Liverpool fans celebrate him as a man who has helped to turn their team around- "does all he can to win, like any player should". Sure he's not "selling tickets" by playing but the teams success leads to more interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

Thanks guys I enjoyed reading your replys.

 

I wonder if Haye when he returns will use a bad attitude and say some stupid comments to grab fans attention.

 

He can't just walk into a world title fight, surely?

 

We will wait and see...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

It reallys does work and it reminds me of some messages I have read on Facebook.

 

Example: "I've bought tickets for _______ vs ________ who else is fighting?" or "I've bought tickets for _______ vs ________ who is on the undercard?"

 

If you are a boxing fan and are buying tickets for a fight one of the first things you do it look up who else is fighting.

 

So the hype, attitudes, negativity surrounding a fight is getting non boxing fans buying tickets or semi interested boxing fans.

 

 

I came across similar messages like that on Twitter.

 

Seems some of the people buying boxing tickets are more football fans. A

 

real boxing fan knows whos on the card!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

As a society we are more concerned about personality, back story and looks than talent, not just in boxing but most other facets of our life. It's why shows like the X Factor and Britain's got talent are so freakin' popular. Some of us like the "badboys", others like the "girl next door" but we all enjoy some sort of interesting story. Be it "inspired by dead granny when I was 6" to "bank robber turns saint".

 

I realise I'm not exactly representative, but that's exactly why I don't watch all the pre-fight build-up, press conferences etc. I don't watch reality TV or talent shows for the same reason - I've no interest in someone's backstory or the struggles they supposedly faced to get where they are. I get bored waiting for ringwalks and intros to end. I watch boxing for the excitement and the drama of the fight itself; not for the circus surrounding it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

I think all the points on this thread can actually be summed up with George Groves. Right now most people perceive him to be a mouthpiece and a prick of the highest order, but before the Froch fight he never showed any character, and no one gave a shit about him.

 

He was on that early collision course with Degale, who played the arrogant badboy perfectly, and Groves was "the gent" for all their apearances together. It was a great win for Groves and propelled him, but he kind of went stale. No one really gave him much notice.

 

Once the Froch fight was announced, he's come out and played the cunt. The way the first fight panned out, with that predicted knockdown made people talk and get excited. Groves has put on this persona for the last two fights and he's become a rich man off the back of them! Beforehand, he was hardly noticed.

 

I don't particularly like these personalities they either put on, or use for selling purposes, but the general masses lap that kind of shit up.

 

As for the question on whether it's all just an act or are some boxers just general bellends. Well that differs. Mayweather is a scumbag and makes no bones about it. His personality, the "Money" moniker is all accurate. Groves I think "turned on" his cunt act and he reaped the rewards. Froch is naturally arrogant with zero self awareness. Haye on the other hand is a clever guy, very self aware and knows exactly what he's saying and tries to go to the extreme and push boundaries (the gang rape jibe).

 

Think as I've grown that bit older these last few years, and my total dislike for our obsession with celebs/reality tv (as scott has alluded to) I tend to dislike more and more boxers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Boxers: Good vs Bad vs Pantomine

 

Kameda family play pantomine baddy here they get good viewing but people happy when they lose. Arrogance not do good here mostly we want good fights and good fighters not loud mouth or time waster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...