Why does "creating an image" in boxing mean acting like a twat?

We don't know him personally so that's just speculation. Nothing he said or did suggests he's a bad guy. There was nothing malicious or spiteful about his trash talk and he was very respectful to Rees post fight. Acting like a twat may not be the way forward but it helps certain fighters sell themselves, which like I said is very difficult to do by playing the good guy. You need to be a damn entertaining fighter like Pacquiao, have natural charisma like Johnny Tapia, or movie star looks like DLH to play the good guy. Not everyone can be witty or intelligent.

"Know how to act". Who makes the rules and why should everyone conform? If you judge a man's character by his fight persona then you are as superficial and shallow as the images they've created.

There are stories about Naz treating people like dirt, and Mayweather has served jail time for domestic abuse, but Eubank? Why is he a ****? Why is Broner a ****? Clowning around and talking in a way that's different to the way you're used to doesn't make them ****s. Eubank is one of the most interesting characters in boxing. Not everyone has to put on the humble, man of the people, working class jack the lad act.

 

Exactly. The way he behaved towards Frazier was more than just playful banter, but he wrote poems and was witty so it's okay for him? Like I said, superficial bull****.

 

Apparently Broner served a year for assault and robbery then got out and was then on charges for purse snatching which he managed to beat, I'd say that makes him a **** myself, not really bothered by his pathetic "personality" as I think that\s just for show.

The Brits love a down to earth, humble, working class Hatton type, that us usually the underdog. The american's love brash, over confident, arrogant types. That is what the yanks are like in real life, they think it makes them winners and sets them apart in some way whereas Brits would just be embarrassed, they make no apologies for it and the general rule is that it's all fine so long as you have the talent to back it up.

 

It could be true. To me he's always come across well, although egotistical. The rivalry with Benn for example never came across as personal from Eubank's side.

 

...and Frazier held that bitterly against Ali for the rest of his life.

...just like he bitterly held it against Futch for stopping the fight.

I think that whole story says more about Frazier than it does Ali.

 

look at how many threads there has been on Broner since the fight
actin like a twat got him all the attention in the world

 

Twats get more airtime , hence broner being a twat, furry muff, he is being told how to act, he is just to false and extreamly unfunny to be being himself, if he was like this before he came into the limelight surely he would at least acually be funny instead of just being a unfunny twat

 

he is getting the casuals interested

a few of my mates watched with me today and thought he was a ***** but funny, if he keeps boxings popularity going after may and pac go then so be it, boxing needs him and at the end of the day if he keeps doing the business in the ring he can be forgiven for acting like a prat

a lot of talk on here about broner by people who think tyson fury is the best thing since sliced bread, its double standards and broner is nowhere near as much of a twat as fury, at least broner fights the best out there, doesnt avoid fights, doesnt call out people in other sports who would **** him up in less than 30 seconds and doesnt try to be funny by abusing people

 

[yt]kZvKxINY2HA[/yt]