Does Wilder have more Charisma than AJ?

[J_Undisputed]

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.

[X]

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?

[holmcall]

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 time

[Ron Swanson]

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.

I know this isn’t the place for such a discussion but you brought it up so I want to add on.

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

[Master]

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.

I know this isn’t the place for such a discussion but you brought it up so I want to add on.

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.

[holmcall]

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.

I know this isn’t the place for such a discussion but you brought it up so I want to add on.

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.

Ugh. This is about charisma a boxing. Has nothing to do with slimy, slithery, slippery lawyers Ugh