British boxing: why is TALENT inversely proportional to LIKEABILITY?

You better get to Wembley and borrow the nets before the Scotland game on Friday and hire a crew to manage the imminent catch.

 

The big one's will be hungry soon and you may even get Billy Nelson in your net when he has finished his evening meal.

 

Speaking from across the pond, the UK has long had the hots for lovable losers.

Frank Bruno

Henry Cooper

David Price

Heck, Chisora is practically a PPV star and national treasure.

All of the above, and many more, were successful to a certain degree but not on the biggest stages.

But guys like Lennox Lewis, Naseem Hamed, etc., seem universally disliked.

It’s strange.

 

Chisora is wife beating scum and we all know it.

Met Bruno and know Big Dave Price - both great guys and unlike 'The Humble One' both are genuine humble.

The two British fighters that I really took a dislike to are conman Toe Haye and Bellew.

 

Fury is quite likeable.

 

He's very marmite, as we can see from this board - plenty of people REALLY hate him for some reason. I find him far more likeable if you don't pay too much attention to what he says. He's full of contradictions, exaggeration and silliness.

I think deep down he's a good man though. There are countless stories of him treating his sparring partners very well and generally being pretty well liked on the circuit.

 

TALENT and LIKEABILITY are both far too subjective to be in any way proportional. INVERSELY or otherwise.

 

Always found Taylor to come across as a good lad.

Find BJS rather funny also.

Each to there own though

 

Factual pal, which part don’t you get?

 

Jeezo, did Josh pour sugar in your gas tank?

AFAIK, he's made a few ill-advised comments on social media, and spouted sectarian guff at a bouncer whilst bevvied, but as someone who lives in Edinburgh, I've got the general gist that he is actually generally well regarded in his local community.

He can come across a bit thuggish and mouthy, especially the closer it gets to fight night. But I think 1) he's very self assured and confident 2) genuinely loves boxing and scrapping - which translates to a necessary level of spite in the ring that suggets his confidence and distinctly "Scottish Working Class" swagger is actually merited.

Most of the interviews I've seen of him he generally comes across not too bad, fairly down to earth - but with a hard / rambunctious streak.

 

I loved a Tyson Fury interview from 2009 until post-Wilder I.

And then he went full hypocrite mode, becoming almost everything he slandered Joshua for!

Tyson "Good Morning Britain, This Morning, Seek professional help" Fury is just not the same. He was jealous of Joshua and wanted what he had. Now he's got all of these plastic fans that slandered him for years all the way from "Price will knock you out" to "Klitschko will embarrass you" to "Wilder will take your head off" to now rimming him at any opportunity.

To answer the thread starter, I quite like Saunders. Josh Taylor, well, I don't like him at all (typical ned) but he is someone who is quite clearly happy to box anyone and give it his best shot, and he has passed every test. It's hard to fault that. Sometimes you need these types of characters to make things interesting, and he is really good.

 

I actually like both guys, despite some of their antics outside the ring. Both very skilled boxers BJS is underrated by many on here and is the best trash talker in boxing.

 

Haha no way. That's Tyson Fury, by far.