Hating a fighter for the wrong reason

I hate your post because it just goes on and on about the Klitschko Brothers.

 

Most fans have irrational misdirected anger. Those behind the scenes are rigging the results.

 

Nah, I was just joking. Poorly.

Your thread is about how people hate fighters for things they didn't even do. So I said I hated your thread because it talked about the Klitschkos. (Which it didnt.)

 

I despise Czyz and Pazienza and am completely at ease in the womblike comfort of my hatred.

 

you mean like Eubank and Broner?

I thought they, themselves, provided all the reasons necessary for the pleasure.

 

Is there any good reason to hate a fighter who you have never met?

 

Charles was far from a paper champion. But any argument to Charles claim as heavyweight champ was over in the press when he finally got Louis in the ring and beat him. Charles was a great fighter. Fighters really have no call over the judges scores calls. I can not hate a fighter for something that happens out of there power. I do not hate Holyfield for that "Draw" with Lewis, I respect them both. Or outside forces that when a champion steps down, the new champ should be hated because he did not beat the past champ.

 

Possibly. I'm sure you could find some boxers whose behavior is awful and well documented enough. Especially if their behavior had indirect effects on your own life despite never meeting them personally. Still, "hate" does seem strong.

EDIT: At the much less exalted level of personal dislike, I suppose that a boxer could publicly attack a group you belong to with enough consistency and intensity that you feel insulted, and begin to personally dislike the boxer.

 

I can not argue with the Charles Walcott series since they were WAY before my time, and only the 3rd fight(The one were Walcott ko Charles for the title) is complete. Yeah perhaps the win over Louis was meaningless. But is it any different than Johnson beating Jeffries? Claiming to be the real champ?