What you described, fits what people gave Brook a ton of credit for fighting Golovkin. I'm not saying give Spence a TON of credit, just more than he's received so far. Check the context of my post. If we don't then what reason do they have to do it? Should we only discredit guys when they don't do what they're supposed to? Yes, but why only discredit guys? Positive mentions deserve shouts too. It should be, which is why guys like Spence, Lomachenko, Crawford, Ward and Kovalev, etc, need to be made an example out of. Everyone is so quick to discredit but never give credit. Wtf? Exactly. I agree. The reason I decided to point out Spence is because I see more people giving Brook credit for fighting his mandatory when, IMO, I think Brook should be the favorite. I think Brook is more of a threat to Spence than vice versa. That said, everyone who does what they're supposed to deserve credit and a shout out.
This is the reason why this sport is dying we have to appreciate every little thing which used to be norm it's so fustrating.
What, it's true. From how you speak on a regular basis, your like/dislike of boxers have more to do with factors outside of their boxing ability. It's other things that you consider, for example their personality....and of course... other things!!
You got me mixed up with someone else. Don't hurl cryptic accusations with possible insults, just come out and say it, I won't cry.
No insults, and I can't - might get banned! But from how you type on a normal basis, it really seems like you prefer certain boxers over others, depending on factors other than boxing ability or even personality on occasion. I hope you understand, it's just something many have noticed.
This is why guys duck and make up stupid excuses. Because people like some of you here are like "So what? He's supposed to." But then you want to complain when they don't do it. It's hypocritical. We don't directly cause this but it's this kind of behavior that makes modern divas acceptable.
I'm trying to understand, I like different boxers for different reasons. I don't usually get into the "outside of boxing" or personality stuff much.
That's what boxers do: fight, get in contention and challenge for a belt. It's in UK because that's where money is.
I really can't get specific, bannable offense POSSIBLY. But from what I see, those "reasons" would be seen as reprehensible in contemporary society. That's just what many noticed, that's all. Nothing against you ofc, and I'm not here insulting anyone.
That's your opinion and that's great. But many don't see it that way. He prefers certain boxers over others because of reasons that I don't want to get into. That's just what most recognize, and I'm just doing my part and speaking out for them.
It is not hypocritical in my eyes. It should be standard practice for a young, hungry contender to want to take the belt and become champion and to be prepared to do what it takes to facilitate this. Par for the course. They don't deserve special credit for doing what should be expected from them as standard. It's like saying a police officer deserves special credit for arresting someone. It's their freaking job, not something that they deserve hero worshipping for. However, fighters like Jacobs, who would have passed up the opportunity to become the real middleweight champion of the world and continued to defend his paper trinket had he not been offered more than his fair share, are the reason why fighters are being given praise for doing no more than what they are supposed to do.
Bit different. Brook went up two weight classes and fought the most feared/avoided guy in boxing. That is radically different than this fight.
