The double standard against slick black boxers, Broner, Floyd....

Exciting is engaging.

Not moving forward and backwards.

 

If you're exciting your exciting...plain and simple. Being black has nothing to do with how exciting or boring you are....it's all about style and demeanor. Tyson only fought going forward and his style was adored by the world. He was relentless, skillful and devastating.

Sweetpea was a masterful, slick and unorthodox fighter that rarely ever got hit, yet his style was respected and appreciated by the boxing world because of how great he was with the style he adopted.

Interesting thought....but there's no substance behind it.

 

True. Now people are talking about Broner getting hit too much in his last fight. If he moves and boxes he's boring if he slugs it out he gets hit too much.

 

it must be that time of the month again.:-(

lots of styles/nationalities get stereotyped. mexicans are only face first brawlers, brits have no chins, eruos are robotic, etc...

 

That's true, man. Definitely a black thing. Quite racist, if you ask me.

 

wonder if you feel the same about the Klitchsko brothers?

 

Being black has nothing to do with it. Black boxers have been revered since guys like Sam Langford. Later, guys like Louis, Robinson, Charles, Moore, Ali, Foreman, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Tyson, Jones Jr., Mosley, etc...

I think the problem is not being slick and black... the problem is that Mayweather and Broner both got an irritating attitude. Like Ali, without the clever humor and even him was hated by a lot of people in his time. Most people love humble athletes.

 

with great slick blackness, comes great responsibility.

 

i don't think it is a general double standard. it really only applies to PBF because he was perceived as a "boring defensive' fighter, which i don't agree with.
so when he gets hit and less mobile, he is considered "getting old".

I would not make much of it. Excitement is subjective and many have agendas.

It is like Pac "having no skills" or "crude" because he is perceived as wild. Many just don't study the Sweet Science enough to go past the visceral.

 

Slick, confident fighters definitely do get a hard shake. They're held to a different standard. I mean, have you noticed that when guys like Mayweather and Broner say they're the best in history, their haters actually want them to prove that? :huh Seriously, man, there's just no pleasing some people.

 

If you are "anybody" worth mentioning in this sport then you are expected to be "fan friendly". Boxing is a business and it's also a form of public entertainment at this level. So as a fighter....if you want to be successful, you have to be exciting...or find some other way to put butts in seats.

Floyd didn't lose to Baldo or Cotto...the difference is he got a TON of props and respect from the world for his gutsy performance with Cotto and a ton of flack for his safety first performance against Baldo.

 

The problem is people are using Mayweather as a benchmark for Broner.

Mayweather - defensive fighter who puts all his effort into not being hit

Broner - offensive fighter who puts all his effort into knocking people out

I wonder why Broner gets hits so much?? :?