Who is the Most Polarizing Character in Boxing?

It's a simple one really: who is the most polarizing character in boxing?

There's plenty out there. Some we love to love and others we love to dislike, but who including: promoters, boxers, commentators and anyone generally involved in the sport to the point of influence, polarizes us, and in turn, the relationship we have with this sport we love?

I thank you for your time and look forward to solid BOXING related responses.

Only the intelligent need reply.

Yours,

DDGO2 (the apparent written voice of a degeneration)

Floyd.

Everything about the guy is polarising. He's been the no.1 guy and the face of boxing for so long, highest earning guy in sport and putting a fring sport in the public's eye. But what kind of example does he set? When you're assesing the merits of boxing is he a guy you'd pin your flag on like Messi or Ronaldo for football?

He's probably figure higher than any contemporary boxer on an ATG list but is it a positive thing having a 38 year old guy at the top of the food chain? What happens if he retires undefeated having cleaned up the division minus Pacquiao? What does that say about the incumbents?

Can I ask anymore rhetorical questions in one post?

Excellent response and pick. Talk about love to hate. That guy does it all and seemingly so little for the sport as each year goes by. He can abandon it, use it for personal gain, fix fights so to his advantage (weight, gloves) turn ugly and pretty, he does it all.

Mayweather values emotion. You have to feel something about him each time, but as he gets older he gets more vulnerable, but only in the ring, outside of it he's the same controlling monster he's always been, or is he?

DDGO2

I'd say there's actually a broad consensus with floyd. Most think he's a great fighter and a jerk of a human being. Eubank senior was a guy that genuinely polarised opinion.

In British boxing today I'd say froch. A hero and a great to some, a limited slugger who lucked out a couple of times and a needy to**er to others.

On a world level, I'm going with Hopkins. Hugely admired by some for his achievements in the game and longevity. Despised by others for the manner in which he got those achievements and for dragging it out.

Sorry. Just realised you said only the intelligent should reply. Can you edit it to say the intelligent plus milky.

Milky those are excellent remarks and I stand by my initial OP!!!

Great response.

B-Hop in his last pre-fight press conference: 'Kovalev a killer, literally,'

Naz Rich: 'Bernard, stop, right now, just stop.'

I love B-Hop but that was well off.

I would say Klitschko is very polarising. Personally I think he is very underrated because he has a boring style and spent most of his career fighting bums. But he proved against Haye that he is a very good boxer and very difficult to outbox. Make no mistake, Haye is a world boxer. Yes he chose the wrong tactics, yes he wasnt fully fit, but Klitschko boxed very well. I have to admit I was someone who thought Haye would knock him out but KLitschko proved he was a lot better than most people thought. He is very smart in the ring. But a lot of people give him no respect at all and think he is a bum. I dont think they realise how hard it is to actually outbox Klitschko.

DDGO2 wrote:It's a simple one really: who is the most polarizing character in boxing?

I would say either James North or Tony South

Don't think anyone has ever polarised opinion in boxing like Tyson did / does. I know we're a bit more measured about him on here, but back on the old BBC board there hardly ever seemed to be any middle ground on him; he was either a complete tin man who folded whenever tested, lost to every decent fighter he faced and was badly overrated on the basis of beating up has-beens and never-bes, or he was the greatest fighter to ever lace 'em up in his 'prime' and who only lost a fight because he dind't love boxing anymore, rather than having any flaws in his style and arsenal. Needless to say those kind of polar-opposites seem to crop up whenever he's discussed as a figher.

With regards to his life outside the ring, he seems to have an equal measure of those who argue that he's always just been a vile thug who is rotten to the core and those who say that he was actually a decent bloke at heart who was taken advantage of and who was stitched up for a whole manner of things.

Khan, some seem to like him, others seem to hate him. Is he any good or a lucky lucky hype job?

Khan is hyped but he puts it on the line, for that I respect him. And the chicken dance is good too, and the neck punches he takes.

On this board, Eddie Hearn!

Currently Froch is an odd one for me. He's my own marmite fighter. When he talks I roll my eyes, when he fights I admire him.

Naz was polarizing. You either loved his showmanship and all that went with his antics or you were glad when he finally lost and was sent plummeting back to earth. When I was younger I was in the love him camp ( I was impressionable ). Now I'm older I do think he was a bit of a tool.

Good examples. Hearn defo of late, the guy is your best mate one minute and in your pocket the next.

George Groves. Great talent with a devastating right hand, speed and reflexes. Should/could have beaten Froch 1st time around (I agree). Great talker and good for the sport

Got lucky against Froch 1st time and could never have beaten him. Now on the slide after 2 average performances. No chin and will get knocked out by Degale in 2015.

Groves is just a WUM at this point, and way to ego driven.

DDGO2 wrote:Groves is just a WUM at this point, and way to ego driven.

Are you George Groves because the similarities are startling?

Is Hearn really polarizing though, there's only one person that hates him with a passion known only to ex lovers and would struggle to say anything decent if the guy solved famine.

Most people know he's done some good for the sport but he is ultimately there to look after his fighters and himself.

Hearn is a manipulating scuzza these days, but I still believe in him.

What do you believe then DDG?

In time he'll screw us but maybe, maybe, we get some decent match ups before he does.

milkyboy wrote:I'd say there's actually a broad consensus with floyd. Most think he's a great fighter and a jerk of a human being. Eubank senior was a guy that genuinely polarised opinion.

In British boxing today I'd say froch. A hero and a great to some, a limited slugger who lucked out a couple of times and a needy to**er to others.

On a world level, I'm going with Hopkins. Hugely admired by some for his achievements in the game and longevity. Despised by others for the manner in which he got those achievements and for dragging it out.

Sorry. Just realised you said only the intelligent should reply. Can you edit it to say the intelligent plus milky.

That pretty much describes Froch really..no ones claiming he's a nice guy, he even says it himself; he is limited, but with those limitations went to the top - thats great.

Mayweather, Hopkins, Khan, Wlad all good picks.

Haye at one point, but I think a lot of his fanbase are behind Joshua now instead

Polarising?

Calzaghe. TO some an ATG who had a good career and deserves his place in the upper echelons of ATG's from the UK and to others someone who beat Journeymen for years in the comfort of his own home and took on his biggest challenges when they were past their best.

Kessler contradicts that in my eyes, but its still quite a commonly held opinion I've noticed.

Negativity towards Calzaghe seems to have mellowed since retirement. On the old 606 he copped an awful lot of flack and certainly polarised opinion. Now I think people appreciate him a lot more.

I was always a pretty big fan, myself.

Can't say the same Dipper - I never really bought into his greatness. Undeniable he had a great career, wins against Hopkins and Kessler look better with time but there will always be questions raised about why he didn't fight the big men in the division earlier and why he took some of the easier fights. I think he'd have won the more challenging fights as he was immensely talented maybe his management caused his career to be the way it was?

I think most people appreciate his talent now. But its not difficult to criticise his choice of opponents and I think that will always stay with him

Yeah I can appreciate that JabMachine. As a fan of his I feel frustrated looking back at what might have been. Undoubtably had a great career and head to head I'd back him against anyone apart from a prime Roy Jones. Depends if you value titles and accolades or names on the CV I suppose.

I say this all the time, any Calzaghe beats any Froch 10/10 but Froch's CV is a who's who of his division and he always had that 'I'll fight anyone, anywhere' attitude.

Going on a few forums, I'd say Miguel Cotto is very polarising*. Some seem to adore him, others seem to think he's a so-and-so chubby manlet**

*I may have made that up
**I may not have made that one up

I think it's just you and me Raf! Nobody else seems to worry too much about him

I hear he doesn't live the cleanest life outside of the ring? Cotto drinks a bit I hear, but as a boxer, I love him, always game.

Filthy man that Cotto, Dipper. I've heard things awful things about which I can't put on here because of the potential for libel, and because I haven't actually heard them.

He just looks suspect

Ya suspect Cotto, ya suspect!

But we like ya left hook to the body and bullish ways.

But ya suspect!

Like Marquez when he entered the ring against Pac looking like he was wearing one of those six pack outfits you get in costume shops.

Suspect!

Most boxers are polarised amongst the pub chat talk that generally populates forums.

I have found Tyson, de la Hoya and Hopkins pretty polarised in my experience. As in genuine informed opinions can swing quite hugely in how they regard them.

Tyson is definitely a great shout - to some he's the Incredible Hulk/Superman who beats any heavyweight in history and to others he's a man who was found wanting against a guy who stood up to him and boxed his ears off when he had nothing to lose. Then there's the out of the ring antics with the jail sentence, some say it was a foregone conclusion that you go to a hotel room with Mike Tyson and stuff will happen and she's likely to have been in it for the moolah and some that say he's an abhorrent human being who has always been guilty etc.