Thread: Why articles about "why Broner's loss was bad for boxing".... are bad for boxing.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-adr...0112--box.html








Although I do have to admit... the author makes a compelling argument in the following excerpt:



"Whether one appreciated his act or not, there's little denying that Broner was a new type of boxing star, quickly becoming a legitimate crossover talent with a direct path to young, media-savvy fans via sites such as Worldstar Hip-Hop."



Because, gosh-darn it..... if there's any type of fan I'm anxious to attract to the sport of boxing, it's those reached through Worldstar Hip-Hop.

I think people are being very niave and shortsighted when they say guys like Broner aren't good for boxing.

This isn't golf or chess league. This is the testosterone sport. Part sport, part spectacle. Modern day warriors and larger-than-life personalities. One of only two mainstream sports where the main objective is to beat the shit out of another human being. We love having the dynamic of heros and villains. So when you have a guy like Broner who has the ability to make people REALLY hate him, it's GREAT for boxing. Guys like Broner get people emotionally invested in their matches. It makes things interesting.

Nobody was luke-warm about the Maidana/Broner outcome. Whether you're a boxing layman or a boxing expert, EVERYONE had a strong opinion. Some people were very disappointed, most people were very happy, but nobody was impartial to it. And that's what boxing needs: people giving a fuck about the fights and people talking about it.

So give Broner his due. It takes balls to be the bad guy. It's easy to be "humble guy", not say anything to rock the boat or offend anyone, and be like melba toast.

But to act in a way where 90% of the public are going to hate you and just wait for you to stumble so they can shit on you, that takes bigger balls than just being another one of the millions of people who just fade into the background.

The question is whether Broner can separate his promotional persona from his behavior in the ring. If he has a plan to market himself as a "villain," then that's fine.

But he has to leave that persona behind when the bell rings. He can't be humping opponents, fouling constantly, faking injuries, et cetera. That isn't showing balls, that's showing mental weakness.

He has to carry himself with a certain level of dignity in the ring or else he'll constantly be fighting against his own reputation. Referees won't respect him, judges won't respect him, and opponents won't respect him.

That stuff will make everything harder for him. And a villain who doesn't win fights doesn't stay a villain very long. You just become a loser.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I think people are being very niave and shortsighted when they say guys like Broner aren't good for boxing.

This isn't golf or chess league. This is the testosterone sport. Part sport, part spectacle. Modern day warriors and larger-than-life personalities. One of only two mainstream sports where the main objective is to beat the shit out of another human being. We love having the dynamic of heros and villains. So when you have a guy like Broner who has the ability to make people REALLY hate him, it's GREAT for boxing. Guys like Broner get people emotionally invested in their matches. It makes things interesting.

Nobody was luke-warm about the Maidana/Broner outcome. Whether you're a boxing layman or a boxing expert, EVERYONE had a strong opinion. Some people were very disappointed, most people were very happy, but nobody was impartial to it. And that's what boxing needs: people giving a fuck about the fights and people talking about it.

So give Broner his due. It takes balls to be the bad guy. It's easy to be "humble guy", not say anything to rock the boat or offend anyone, and be like melba toast.

But to act in a way where 90% of the public are going to hate you and just wait for you to stumble so they can shit on you, that takes bigger balls than just being another one of the millions of people who just fade into the background.

Thats just stupid. Do you think if noone watched Broner because he is a prick hed still act the same? If he was getting paid 10k per fight instead of a few million. No. Hes just a spoilt brat. Take some of his stupid purses away and he wont act like such a cunt.

Ninty percent of the people watching that fight were glad to see Broner and his smart mouth get shut down.
Don't try to tell me that a smart mouthed, disrespectfull asshole like Broner is good for boxing.
I'm not speaking about his ability as a boxer which is very good to great. I'm wondering how an individual that can generate so much discord and hate among boxing fans is good for boxing.
I would say just about everyone watching that fight inperson was thrilled that Broner suffered a beat down. They were giving him the finger and throwing water bottles at him during his exit. I have no idea what they were saying/screaming at him.
Anyway, my point is the same, how is this little turd good for boxing when he is generating that kind of behavior from the fans?
The fans didn't see Broner and take an instant dislike to him, he acted like a disrespectful, punkass, first class idiot and drought their wrath down on himself.
Piss on Broner, and the guy who said it was bad for boxing that Broner got his ass kicked.

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I think people are being very niave and shortsighted when they say guys like Broner aren't good for boxing.

This isn't golf or chess league. This is the testosterone sport. Part sport, part spectacle. Modern day warriors and larger-than-life personalities. One of only two mainstream sports where the main objective is to beat the shit out of another human being. We love having the dynamic of heros and villains. So when you have a guy like Broner who has the ability to make people REALLY hate him, it's GREAT for boxing. Guys like Broner get people emotionally invested in their matches. It makes things interesting.

Nobody was luke-warm about the Maidana/Broner outcome. Whether you're a boxing layman or a boxing expert, EVERYONE had a strong opinion. Some people were very disappointed, most people were very happy, but nobody was impartial to it. And that's what boxing needs: people giving a fuck about the fights and people talking about it.

So give Broner his due. It takes balls to be the bad guy. It's easy to be "humble guy", not say anything to rock the boat or offend anyone, and be like melba toast.

But to act in a way where 90% of the public are going to hate you and just wait for you to stumble so they can shit on you, that takes bigger balls than just being another one of the millions of people who just fade into the background.

You make it sound like he knows what it is to be humble to begin with. Boxing doesn't need actors based purely on the sake of acting. If we want clowns we'll go to the circus. He has no more "balls" than any other obscure plugger who does it to pay the rent every month. Less the crass cocky bully and more the guy who runs behind him just trying to jump in the photo.

Boxing is pure in one way. If you bite off more than you can chew and wind up getting your ass kicked, that's boxing pure and simple.
Boxing isn't about who should or should not win because it would be better for boxing.

Agreed with most of the above posts.

... and to clarify... the author didn't claim Broner himself was bad for boxing. He claimed Broner's loss was bad for boxing. To me that's even more ludicrous. On the contrary. If anything, most people would say Broner's loss to Maidana was good for boxing. It shows the importance of substance over style.... of humble ability over empty bragging.

The author doesn't know shit about the great sport of boxing.