Should a fighter ever be referred to as a bum or tomato can?

[holmcall]

I say no. If a man is tough enough to train and get into the ring, he deserves more respect.


What say you?

[Master]

You are right it is a tough sport and they should not be referred as such. It is part of boxing folklore "bum of the month" ect and it is a easy and quick way to describe a limited fighter.

[brocktonblockbust]

It is true--Bruce Seldon and Peter McNeely should NEVER--under any circumstances---be referred to as bums or tomato cans.

[Tam Seddon]

Audley Harrison isn't a bum at all.

[SlimTrae]

Every sport has the cream of the crop & bottom of the barrel. Yup, there are tomato cans: Guys who get paid to take dives, who fight just to make a few bucks & guys who actually try but get their buttocks handed to them. They all qualify as bums/tomato cans.

[Hulk]

Every sport has the cream of the crop & bottom of the barrel. Yup, there are tomato cans: Guys who get paid to take dives, who fight just to make a few bucks & guys who actually try but get their buttocks handed to them. They all qualify as bums/tomato cans.

I feel as though the ones who make an honest effort deserve our respect no matter how limited their skills are.

It's the fat slobs and ones who take dives and don't train that I feel comfortable calling bums.

[p4pking]

Sure, why not. You can still respect a tomato can for being tough enough to train and get into the ring, but if they suck why beat around it.

I'm sure legions of minor league athletes in other sports train as hard as the top pros, they just don't get a chance to compete against them because they aren't nearly as good, and therefore nobody ever hears about them. Only in boxing and perhaps MMA are clearly inferior athletes ever given oppourtunities to compete at a high level and for a large audience, I don't feel to sorry for them myself. If you are no good at something and you choose to do it for a living, don't expect to be taken seriously.

[IamInuit]

I rarely if ever use either term if I can help it but they do apply at times. I try to use opponent or no hoper instead. Nowadays, number 1 contenders are routinely called bums. For the super stars, everybody they beat. I have no issues with the words themselves, one of which is as old as the sport itself but its the use that gets me at times.

When Eric Crumble was entering the ring for his 31st fight with a record of 0 and 30 along with being knocked out all 30 previous times the term "opponent" or "no hoper" just does not cut it. Even his last name begs a different response

[beenKOed]

You are right it is a tough sport and they should not be referred as such. It is part of boxing folklore "bum of the month" ect and it is a easy and quick way to describe a limited fighter.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who gets in the ring and I don't like
like the derogatory terms used by a lot fans (I'm guilty too), but there is a huge gap between elite fighters and journeymen, so I understand the appeal and temptation of the disrespectful terms.

[Silkeyjoe]

As long as elite fighters duck other elites/pick the easy fight Im happy to call their opponents bums. Its more a criticism of the elite fighter then the fighter Im actually calling a bum

[SlimTrae]

Mismatches can make a person misconstrue a good fighter as a bum/tomato can. As Roy Jones said: "They aint bad...I just make 'em look bad!"

[Spicoli]

Don't think I've ever used the term bum but tomato can, oh yeh. Most recently when describing Wilders list of opponents.

Think the difference is a 'bum' is a guy throwing it...obviously no intent to win, diving or even resorts to illegal tactics? Can's are just horrible little of skill and almost professional tough guy boxers. Can's can also 'get it' if Adrian Broner says so

[SugarBoxing]

I say no. If a man is tough enough to train and get into the ring, he deserves more respect.


What say you?

I think when you describe somebody's skill level, you may use these words