I see Wilder's charisma as being derived from his brashness and unpredictability in the ring. IN short, I see him as being more exciting than the more predictable, but equally deadly, Joshua.
What say you? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
Printable View
I see Wilder's charisma as being derived from his brashness and unpredictability in the ring. IN short, I see him as being more exciting than the more predictable, but equally deadly, Joshua.
What say you? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
He yells a lot.
Excellent observation. ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
I do not define charisma as shouting and screaming. AJ is someone who you can listen to, is interesting and funny. He is not loud and brash but very exciting in the ring.
Anyway charisma will not win the fight when they meet. Composure will.
Just two different people both with charisma - they’re not in Andy Murray’s league of course but still ok.
I like them both.
I don't find AJ charismatic at all, everything he says and does outside the ring is far too measured, the extensive media training has removed every shred of personality he has.
I like Wilder but I still want to see AJ win if they do fight.
Of course he has more charisma. He always did. Joshua looks too proper at times. Wilder is milking the media. He knows he has power. He knows he can take a decent punch now. He also knows he has endurance, better than many give him credit for. So he has the reason to be brash and in your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by holmcall
Everyone was expecting him to at LEAST be floored by now. He has not. He has a better chin than we gave him credit for. We mistook him for a Hearns/Breland type- lanky, long, with only a punch and tires coming towards the end or when he gets hurt.
Wilder is the real deal.
You missed the point. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Let ne say it differently. Wilder is more fun watch vainly because of his flaws.
So Charisma is having a vulnerable chin with a big punch? AJ fits that criteria. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by holmcallYou missed the point. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Let ne say it differently. Wilder is more fun watch vainly because of his flaws.
I like the fact that neither of them looks like they have their own express lane at McDonald's, and that when they talk you don't need captions underneath.
Personality-wise I like them both.
I've been a fan of Joshua since well before he won his Olympic gold. I watched him in the amateurs when he was coming through those ranks. He was a big, strong, hard punching guy who could (easily) have become a bad 'un. Tough guy, who liked fighting, and liked hurting people. Chinny and a bit robotic, though you could never question his heart and commitment.
I object to the fact that he is now a 'brand', and he is 'AJ' the smiling, inoffensive poster boy for UK boxing. The nice boy who never does anything wrong, lives with his mum, generates huge purses for other people, darling of the crossover fan ....... I don't like that at all. He is now the unbeatable man-child.
shades of what they said Iron Mike was on the way up. Equally as much of a lie ..... although if Joshua ends up being half the fighter Tyson was (for a short time, admittedly), he will do well.
So .... the way their 'media personalities' are - yes, Wilder is more charismatic than Joshua.
Hmm good one XQuote:
Originally Posted by X
Depends. Wilder on one hand is rowdy and center of attention when he enters a room. The man has a serious look at me hang up and compensates for lack of substance by yelling loudest and living in the literal ring moment. He's all about the instant and saying exactly what enters his head. Fans like a guy who swings for the fences, appears very vulnerable while doing so, and has a 'fire' burning 24-7 and doesn't care what people think. Of course lots of guys do that..the cocky brash A holes. That can make Wilder one you just want to see get his comeuppance and pay a price for careless style. But I think there is a simplicity about Wilder and not the over the top 'let me light my cigar with a $100 bill' and claim I'm the best ever. AJ seems pretty rehearsed and looks to please everyone. He has the polish and professionalism. He's the one you invite over for Holiday dinner with the extended family, Wilders the guy who pulls into the driveway hanging out the window shouting 'what up Moms and Pops lemme get a plate'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Wilde's imperfections are what give him his charisma
;D Yes. Much shorter version.Quote:
Originally Posted by holmcallQuote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
Wilde's imperfections are what give him his charisma
I find Wilder boorish and tedious on twitter trying to shadow box in his flat late at night or beating up a mentally challenged fanboy in sparring.
AJ is getting more "preachy" with his sermon after fight interviews but he is better to listen too.
Depends how you define charisma. Both try a little too hard for me. In a strange way I think both have a public facing persona that would possibly suit the other one better.
Joshua has more charisma.
He has good manners and comes across as sincere, intelligent, and honorable.
Wilder comes across as stupid, childlike and lacking in self-control, the kind of person who soils himself regularly.
The deluded internet warrior fanboy that Wilder invited into the ring was a previous poster on here, I believe.
As I recall, he was a trolling nutjob with little grip on reality.
I was delighted when someone as pathetic and annoying, yet who still felt they were important and special enough to be listened to ..... got their face smashed in by a genuine 6'7" world class heavyweight.
The problem with the internet is that there is no consequence to what you say. This might even relate to many different threads on here too ;D
There should be consequence to what people say on the internet, just as there are in real life. We would have less hate speech, rumour mongering, fake news and incitement if there was a Deontay Wilder in every PC and tablet in the world.
If some idiot was grooming someone on the net, downloading jihadi material, propagating hatered and strife .... a really long arm with a glove on the end of it would leap out of their screen and blitz them out cold with one punch. Their speakers would then scream "BOOMMMBZSQUAAAAAD" at them for good measure.
People see charisma differently. Most find Spence boring speaking very plain and honest. I find him to be easily the most charismatic fighter going.
I like AJ as a fighter but I find him very fake so no, his personality does not inspire devotion from me. Wilder, I don't know what to make of that guy. His words don't meet with his career so it comes off fake too.
They aren't Keith Thurman fake but they're fake and I don't follow that. Let's just see them fight.
Tough crowd in here.
All I see are two highly skilled professional athletes at the top of their game, both with explosive potential inside the ring, and totally different personalities out of it. Wilder's been fed a bunch of nobodies to fatten up his record... but slowly he's getting credible victories under his belt, and making it harder and harder for the haters to keep hating. I've been a long time skeptic... but I applaud some of his recent fights. Ortiz may have been old and on the downside of his career... but he was still a dangerous, avoided fighter. Wilder took him on and knocked him out. AJ brought out the offense in Wlad, something that hadn't been done in decades. The best HW title fight in many many moons, IMO. For that I thank both of them. They seem to be on a collision course. Let's look forward to that. As far as charisma, at this point I don't give a rat's ass. Wilder is exuberant.... we should see as much in some of the jaded professional athletes nowadays. He's confident and he's proud. Hardly damning qualities for a heavyweight boxing champion. AJ is less outgoing, but seems like a truly nice guy. So I like both of them. Also, it's downright refreshing to see two heavyweight fighters who keep in excellent shape, and who can talk in a manner that can be understood by a normal human being, something that I remember guys like Toney and Bowe totally lacked.
I'm back to liking the heavyweight division again. :)
James Toney has more charisma than both of them combined and is probably heavier too. He would beat them both on the same night in his Rahman prime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Fantastical post!! shall "steal" with your permission and a couple of quotation marks.
That was Charlie Zelanof the true P4P GOATQuote:
Originally Posted by X
He goes around gyms asking random people with no experience to spar with him then sucker punches them before they are ready, he goes home creates an elaborate back story for the (ex navy seal, former MMA champion, stuff like that) then he posts it on the internet and claims it's another win, I think he is something like 230-0 at the moment.
Have a look at some of the videos on YouTube, the bloke is fucking infuriating, he must have some sort of mental issues.
I believe he posted here quite regularly but it was before my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BatmanThat was Charlie Zelanof the true P4P GOATQuote:
Originally Posted by X
He goes around gyms asking random people with no experience to spar with him then sucker punches them before they are ready, he goes home creates an elaborate back story for the (ex navy seal, former MMA champion, stuff like that) then he posts it on the internet and claims it's another win, I think he is something like 230-0 at the moment.
Have a look at some of the videos on YouTube, the bloke is fucking infuriating, he must have some sort of mental issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Toney has a lot more something than both of them combined..... but it's that something you find in abundance on the outer layers of whales.
Steroids.....oh blubber...blubber......I'm going with steroids ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
Toney has a lot more something than both of them combined..... but it's that something you find in abundance on the outer layers of whales.
I will say if there was ever a fighter I'd buy the whole "Contaminated beef" excuse for failing a PEDs test from it would be James Toney....."Well he does seem to enjoy eating....maybe he ate too much"
Good point, Lyle. Just how do you pick out the contaminated meat from the UN-contaminated?
Case in point...........
https://media1.britannica.com/eb-med...4-ADDE3B6B.jpg
As Memphis mentioned. I think its all about how you define charisma. There's more to it than just confidence. There has a to be a certain draw there that pulls people to a persons character. Just as with many things today there are a lot of messages lost because of the opinion of the source. It's like people wearing big vagina costumes and hats in the US telling us that we should respect women, take them seriously and pay them equal salaries. The message is totally clouded by the presentation. This is the problem I have with Wilder. His brash persona, poor sportsmanship displays and in ring antics make it hard to take him seriously or really advocate for him being an ambassador of the sport (not that he wants to be nominated). Disrespect of his opponents and the lack of honor to learn his craft (he can at least stop swinging across his own body with those door knocker punches) detract from any earnest backing the guy has from coming from his journey from humble beginnings to support his daughter with a debilitating condition. Now no one says he has to do it the way I or anyone else likes. Hes free to do what he wants, opinions be damned. For me, its at least partly why I can't call his appeal charismatic as much as attribute it to the train wreck effect.
Joshua on the other hand is rather vanilla, no frills. In many way just like Lennox remained low key, he tends to fly under the radar. Is that charismatic? No not really. But if you're taking yourself seriously, your craft seriously and are cognizant of the effect you have on the people around you and the sport as a whole... People can find reasons to like you for at least not rocking the boat just for the sake of making waves. Is he the heir apparent people are hyping him to be? That remains to be seen but slow and steady wins the race as they say. For me the smiling gracious winner does more for ones image than all the asinine self promoting and screaming the other guy does. So he may not be the show stopper many want to see yet, but he has an honest shot at it as long as he can remain dominant in the ring. Even Lennox benefited from that.
People want to see the bad guy get punished more than they like to the good guy get rewarded... it doesn't amount to charisma. Charisma emanates from within the individual not from the situation. Just like the saying about who a person is, not being defines by what happens to them but how they deal with it.
You make a very fair point.
I suppose 'charisma' means having some attractive or charming attribute that inspires people to follow you, or be devoted to you.
Ali was charismatic, people loved him (later on). Lennox and AJ possibly inspire respect, but not necessarily devotion.
Evan magnetic performers like Tyson, Liston, Duran etc inspired a sort of dread awe..... but not devotion or love.
But by that definition, there have been very few sports people, never mind boxers, who have been truly charismatic?
Chacon and Quarry had it big timeQuote:
Originally Posted by X
Joshua is boring personality wise. Wilder tries real hard not to be boring. I don't really care much what either one has to say. But I do wanna see them fight
Charisma obviously won't win you fights, but honestly I don't get what the big deal is with Joshua being boring or not having charisma.
Here he is doing his best Wilder impression (sucks... but "A" on effort) and giving an all-an-all good interview.
http://www.skysports.com/boxing/news...der-impression
Personally, I think people are just too hard to please. Too loud and brash... you get criticized. Too soft-spoken... you're boring.
Like I said before, tough crowd. ;)
I get what Tito is saying and agree fans can be fickle. I for the record have never once said AJ is boring. I prefer a fighter to be humble and would rather judge them on what they do inside the ring. Obviously that doesn't always translate to ratings and $$$. A enjoy a bit of smack talk or showboating at times (a bolo punch or Ali shuffle is generally entertaining) but only if done against a quality opponent. Some guys just connect with the public, Naz, Ali etc, sometimes it's love or hate, people want to see you win or get beat. There's no real recipe for successfully crossing over, every mainstream star has done it slightly different.
I know this isn’t the place for such a discussion but you brought it up so I want to add on.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Undisputed
I think this clouded message is intentional. If people are confused they don’t look into things, they just think of what they “know” that women get 70cents on the dollar or whatever fake number they apply now and don’t check into the real numbers. To get to these numbers you have to ignore that women work shorter hours and take more days off. It’s understandable because of the excess demands on women. But it means the argument is completely dishonest.
Imagine 2 lawyers are hired the same day. One man and one woman. Of equal competence as lawyers. Single man with a child, single woman with a child.(equal situations, sort of) Man has part time custody, as is common. Woman has full time custody, as is common. This man is probably going to work more hours and take less time off because he has less responsibilities. This is common. So working more hours and more days he becomes a partner quicker.
In these statistics the woman has been treated unfairly, making less money for “equal work” how they apply it. But in real work terms this scenario has been entirely fair.
I’m all for equal rights, and definitely understand men have stacked the deck and treat women awful. But I hate that intentionally deceptive statistics can be repeated enough to be accepted as true.
Sorry for the rant, just, I believed the deception too for so long. Everyone says it it must be true. Didn’t learn the truth until getting into loan management. Wage gap is a well constructed myth
Equal pay for equal work is a concept in law that can be applied to your example. If it is true then it will be acceptable and legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonI know this isn’t the place for such a discussion but you brought it up so I want to add on.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Undisputed
I think this clouded message is intentional. If people are confused they don’t look into things, they just think of what they “know” that women get 70cents on the dollar or whatever fake number they apply now and don’t check into the real numbers. To get to these numbers you have to ignore that women work shorter hours and take more days off. It’s understandable because of the excess demands on women. But it means the argument is completely dishonest.
Imagine 2 lawyers are hired the same day. One man and one woman. Of equal competence as lawyers. Single man with a child, single woman with a child.(equal situations, sort of) Man has part time custody, as is common. Woman has full time custody, as is common. This man is probably going to work more hours and take less time off because he has less responsibilities. This is common. So working more hours and more days he becomes a partner quicker.
In these statistics the woman has been treated unfairly, making less money for “equal work” how they apply it. But in real work terms this scenario has been entirely fair.
I’m all for equal rights, and definitely understand men have stacked the deck and treat women awful. But I hate that intentionally deceptive statistics can be repeated enough to be accepted as true.
Sorry for the rant, just, I believed the deception too for so long. Everyone says it it must be true. Didn’t learn the truth until getting into loan management. Wage gap is a well constructed myth
Ugh. This is about charisma a boxing. Has nothing to do with slimy, slithery, slippery lawyers UghQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterEqual pay for equal work is a concept in law that can be applied to your example. If it is true then it will be acceptable and legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonI know this isn’t the place for such a discussion but you brought it up so I want to add on.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Undisputed
I think this clouded message is intentional. If people are confused they don’t look into things, they just think of what they “know” that women get 70cents on the dollar or whatever fake number they apply now and don’t check into the real numbers. To get to these numbers you have to ignore that women work shorter hours and take more days off. It’s understandable because of the excess demands on women. But it means the argument is completely dishonest.
Imagine 2 lawyers are hired the same day. One man and one woman. Of equal competence as lawyers. Single man with a child, single woman with a child.(equal situations, sort of) Man has part time custody, as is common. Woman has full time custody, as is common. This man is probably going to work more hours and take less time off because he has less responsibilities. This is common. So working more hours and more days he becomes a partner quicker.
In these statistics the woman has been treated unfairly, making less money for “equal work” how they apply it. But in real work terms this scenario has been entirely fair.
I’m all for equal rights, and definitely understand men have stacked the deck and treat women awful. But I hate that intentionally deceptive statistics can be repeated enough to be accepted as true.
Sorry for the rant, just, I believed the deception too for so long. Everyone says it it must be true. Didn’t learn the truth until getting into loan management. Wage gap is a well constructed myth