Hate their personality, love their game.

[OverratedSanity]

Any examples of the opposite? Particularly likable sportspeople that are absolutely unwatchable? Ed Cowan comes to mind but I'm sure there are better examples.

Darren Sammy?

 

[Uppercut]

Ed Smith of similar ilk, although his test career was so brief I barely recall it now so it's maybe hard to call him unwatchable.

Niall Quinn always seems a good chap and, whilst not unwatchable, his early days at the Arse definitely had a "Bambi on ice" quality. He made the beautiful game look very difficult.

Quinn does come across as especially lovely, but is disqualified for being an absolutely terrible commentator.

Glen Whelan is supposedly unusually sound, and he's one of the most unwatchable footballers I've ever seen. Lucas Leiva probably fits the bill too.

 

[Anil]

Any examples of the opposite? Particularly likable sportspeople that are absolutely unwatchable? Ed Cowan comes to mind but I'm sure there are better examples.

caroline wozniacki

 

[vcs]

Rahul Dravid

I kid, I kid

 

[S.Kennedy]

Any examples of the opposite? Particularly likable sportspeople that are absolutely unwatchable? Ed Cowan comes to mind but I'm sure there are better examples.

Bruno immediately springs to mind although he was decent really and more than watchable.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Phil Taylor is just thoroughly loathsome and diabolical to watch. Yet he's a really nice bloke and the best ever in his profession.

 

[weeman27bob]

Bruno immediately springs to mind although he was decent really and more than watchable.

 

[cnerd123]

The end goal of the amazing boxer is to incapacitate his opponent for the thrill of it. I find that a despicable pursuit, even though both participants agree that that's something they want to do.

Goes for any sport where you can win by knockout ftr. Wrestling is less troubling to me, at least there they have negotiated going in who does what and who gets hurt.

They aren't beating each other up 'for the thrill of it'. They're doing it because they want to test their skills. What do you mean thrill of it? For the audience? For themselves?

This is a very ill-informed perception of combat sports IMO. Sure there is a segment of the population who start a martial arts for the thrill of beating someone up, or wanting to fight in front of cheering crowds, but by the time you get to the professional level you have spent countless hours training, drilling, sparring. Get beaten up. Getting hurt and injured. And then when you do make it to that level, you literally compete with your future life on the line. All the brain damage, all the weight cutting, all the injuries.

You don't do all that because you want to thrill some audience. You don't do all that just because you find fighting fun. You do that because you see yourself as a martial artists. You see what you do as your skill, and you are determined to have your skills at the highest level possible. And the only way to test these skills is to compete. Just like any other sport, just like any other skill. What you do in practice is meaningless if you can't apply it in real life.

And thats why boxers, kickboxers, mma fighters, etc all do what they do.

Maybe its despicable humans want to watch two other humans fight, and your entitled to your own opinions on that, but I think its misguided to suggest that boxers and other combat sports athletes themselves are despicable human beings because that's what they choose to do as a living. Most successful professional fighters continue to fight because they see what they do as a craft, an art, and are committed to constantly testing it and improving it. The thugs tend to go nowhere.

 

[honestbharani]

so *****, I assume you have to switched to refereeing from umpiring?

 

[cnerd123]

so *****, I assume you have to switched to refereeing from umpiring?

I need to rack up more fight experience before I get into refereeing, but it's certainly on the cards.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The only problem I have with combat sports is when someone tries to hit me back.

 

[vcs]

They aren't beating each other up 'for the thrill of it'. They're doing it because they want to test their skills. What do you mean thrill of it? For the audience? For themselves?

This is a very ill-informed perception of combat sports IMO. Sure there is a segment of the population who start a martial arts for the thrill of beating someone up, or wanting to fight in front of cheering crowds, but by the time you get to the professional level you have spent countless hours training, drilling, sparring. Get beaten up. Getting hurt and injured. And then when you do make it to that level, you literally compete with your future life on the line. All the brain damage, all the weight cutting, all the injuries.

You don't do all that because you want to thrill some audience. You don't do all that just because you find fighting fun. You do that because you see yourself as a martial artists. You see what you do as your skill, and you are determined to have your skills at the highest level possible. And the only way to test these skills is to compete. Just like any other sport, just like any other skill. What you do in practice is meaningless if you can't apply it in real life.

And thats why boxers, kickboxers, mma fighters, etc all do what they do.

Maybe its despicable humans want to watch two other humans fight, and your entitled to your own opinions on that, but I think its misguided to suggest that boxers and other combat sports athletes themselves are despicable human beings because that's what they choose to do as a living. Most successful professional fighters continue to fight because they see what they do as a craft, an art, and are committed to constantly testing it and improving it. The thugs tend to go nowhere.

There should be no opposition to professional boxers wearing that big protective thingy on the head that Olympics boxers use, then. Since hurting the opponent is not really their objective. Why isn't it mandatory?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

***** conflates martial arts with other skills like sewing, cooking, writing, drawing, navigating, nutmegging a 600-lb giant, etc. Not all skills are inherently good and we are, as a species, way too good at violence.

There should be no opposition to professional boxers wearing that big protective thingy on the head that Olympics boxers use, then. Since hurting the opponent is not really their objective. Why isn't it mandatory?

Because evidence suggests it doesn't help, amateur boxers end up with roughly the same rates of injury.

 

[vcs]

Oh. That sucks. Outlawing it till we can figure out a way for big blokes to be able to smash other big blokes in the head without endangering their long-term safety is the only way to go about it, then.

 

[cnerd123]

Not only do the helmets not help, but the arguably making things worse.

Why do we care about the long term health of athletes. Let consenting adults do as they wish. It's not like there are fighters our there in this day and age who aren't aware of the risks they face.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh. That sucks. Outlawing it till we can figure out a way for big blokes to be able to smash other big blokes in the head without endangering their long-term safety is the only way to go about it, then.

What exactly is it about dying slowly and painfully of old age that you find so appealing?

 

[vcs]

I know you're being facetious there, but dying slowly of old age >>> suffering through old age with degenerative brain diseases.

I'm not being entirely serious in this thread, and I know it's an unpopular opinion which will offend a lot of boxing fans, but I just don't like sports where the explicit objective is to cause injury to the opponent. The outlawing talk is tongue in cheek, as it will, obviously, never happen.

 

[Uppercut]

I know you're being facetious there, but dying slowly of old age >>> suffering through old age with degenerative brain diseases.

I'm not being entirely serious in this thread, and I know it's an unpopular opinion which will offend a lot of boxing fans, but I just don't like sports where the explicit objective is to cause injury to the opponent. The outlawing talk is tongue in cheek, as it will, obviously, never happen.

I don't know why you think it could never happen. Boxing is banned in quite a lot of places.

It really seemed like you were serious. Maybe it was just an excellent homing-troll aimed at *****. It's not really the done thing to advocate outlawing someone's hobby. Would be a bit like if someone washed up in CC demanding that cricket be banned because people sometimes die playing it.

I dunno, I don't even box. I love heading the football though, which is also pretty bad for my brain. But I'd be miserable if I didn't play. When I miss a few weeks with injury I can feel the depression creeping back in. I look at a lot of boxers and MMAists and where else are they going to get the same sense of purpose and self-worth? Most people aren't built to be content in an adrenaline-free life.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If boxing gets banned it goes underground and is ten times more dangerous.

 

[Daemon]

You don't do all that because you want to thrill some audience. You don't do all that just because you find fighting fun. You do that because you see yourself as a martial artists. You see what you do as your skill, and you are determined to have your skills at the highest level possible. And the only way to test these skills is to compete. Just like any other sport, just like any other skill. What you do in practice is meaningless if you can't apply it in real life.

been noticing this style of writing from ***** for a while now. just curious as to what it's called, no other comment.