Hating a fighter for the wrong reason

Has anyone ever witness someone who despises a fighter, basing his hate for that fighter on grounds that are actually incorrect. For instance, my dad always says that Ezzard Charles was a bum, cuz he was a paper champion. However, Charles won the HW title legitimately in an elimination bout with Walcott in 1949. Some of the other bouts between these two are controversial, but not this one. I don't think anybody's ever said Walcott won the first fight? So how is it that Charles is a paper champion?

Something else I've noticed about my father as well as many boxing fans is they will choose to despise a fighter for winning a decision he shouldn't have won (Sharkey got the decision against Schmeling, Louis got the decision against Walcott, Ali got the decision against Norton in the third fight, and so on), but it's not the fighter's fault. He didn't vote on the cards. It's almost rather similar to ad hominem.

What do you guys think?

 

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

 

How so bro? I don't know much about them, so maybe you would be good enough to explain it for me.

You think they get a lot of unnecessary hate?

 

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.

 

Deep joke man. I would have never figured it out.

 

Tisk Tisk salsanchezfan.

 

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?

 

Good point. I guess not!

 

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.

 

I agree 100%. My dad was just exposed to Louis and Walcott earlier and saw them as getting beat by kind of a mild spoiler type, my dad instantly disliked Charles. My dad thought the win over Louis was meaningless due to Joe's age (I agree), and he actually believes that Walcott won all four of the fights against Charles. Even though I think the point about Louis is correct and maybe Walcott was robbed in a fight, but I do not dislike Charles less for it.

 

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?