is it wrong to root for fighters of your race?

[Tony1244]

You seem to think the klitchsko era "proved" something about nature/nurture or some other phenomenon...

the klitchskos sucked so bad even HBO refused to air their fights...and those guys (wlad and vitali) were hw champs!...can you imagine HBO turning down the opportunity to air a holmes or tyson or holyfield or lewis or even a wilder championship fight?

to me, you're putting way too much weight on the race thing...i mean you put a lot on the shoulders of white fighters to prove or disprove theories related to nature or nurture... no one man should have to bear that much pressure. were you suicidal when wlad got ko'd by brewster and purrity and AJ? ....how about when davarryl williamson came this close to stopping wlad? or the sam peter fight?...did you almost sh*t yourself?

.you should be proud of your race whether they're good boxers or not...recognize that as humans we're all equal in value in different ways even if we're not the smartest or strongest or prettiest. but recognizing that takes being secure within yourself...>>>Guelwaar

Nature/Nurture debates have been argued and also suppressed for a long time. Volumes have been written on why certain groups have dominated certain fields. The Klits, like Tiger Woods have been good examples of the nurture argument. Yes, I think they were a good example of proof.

I'm not as anti Klitschko as you are. Sometimes I rooted for them, sometimes against them. HBO turned them down because culturally Americans were bored by them. It may be a Eastern/Western thing. Fury is entertaining. I can relate a bit to Lennox Lewis, Frank Bruno. The Klitschkos, not so much. They're style in and out of the ring simply did not capture people's imagination, at least not in North America.

I used to think we should be proud of our race until George Carlin set me straight. "You should be proud of accomplishments, not the way you were born." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the point.

[boxing_rocks]

I used to think we should be proud of our race until George Carlin set me straight. "You should be proud of accomplishments, not the way you were born." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the point.

What if there are no serious accomplishments? What did the wise guy suggest for those people ?

[Tony1244]

I used to think we should be proud of our race until George Carlin set me straight. "You should be proud of accomplishments, not the way you were born." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the point.

What if there are no serious accomplishments? What did the wise guy suggest for those people ?

Exactly. I think Carlin's point is people with no serious accomplishments cling to things like race.

There is a 3rd category. People like me who have no serious accomplishments but just don't give a rat's ass

[Freedom2013]

Guelwaar, the Klitschkos always had good ratings on HBO. There was nothing dull or boring about Vitali's style, he threw a lot of punches and nearly always stopped his opponents. HBO actually did show many of their fights.

Max Kellerman always disparaged the Klitschkos, but he tends to favor black boxers and dislikes and discredits other white boxers (for example, after Hatton KOed Castillo, he immediately said "Castillo is shot" rather than give fair credit). He would praise Ward for his ugly style of grappling, clinching and clamping, yet bash Wlad because late in his career he tended to clinch a lot. He would say despite their high KO ratios, the Klitschkos "carried" their opponents. Yet he ignored the fact that Mayweather would not try to stop overmatched opponents, just cruising to UD after UD.

Guelwaar, in fact most people like yourself who disparaged the Klitschkos did so because they were white, and the K bros were upsetting the status quo (black domination) in boxing. I noticed nearly all the people who continually bashed the Klitschkos on ESB and BS had a black fighter in their avatar. They would list just non-white boxers as their favorites, and also discredit other good white boxers like Calzaghe, Lomachenko, Marciano, etc.

[HomicideHenry]

No.... However, it's difficult as hell debating with fans who ALWAYS root for "one of their own" and no amount of facts can change their mind. Used to argue all the time with a radio show host named Jesse Rican about his "picks" in matches because he ALWAYS picked Hispanics (because he was Hispanic).

[USMCer]

It's tribal.

But I root for fighters from my home-State and home-Region, it's not so much about race or ethnicity, all the time.

I actually root stronger for guys from my home-State more than fighters who's style I like more (in some cases).

Andre Ward is White and Black... but more importantly he's from California so I like to see him succeed. I probably like watching Kovalev more though.

[prime]

I was at the excel London 2012, vasyl Lomachenko Is boxing a Dominican black kid, the white British cried around me are all cheering for the black Dominican, they had no idea who either was... Probably virtue signalling!! No black fans would randomly support a white foreigner over a black foreigner!!

not true...lomachenko had his first pro fight in 2013...in las vegas, USA

2012 is BEFORE 2013!!! I'm talking about the Olympic Games..Absolute retard

[Counter-puncher]

It's tribal.

But I root for fighters from my home-State and home-Region, it's not so much about race or ethnicity, all the time.

[Guelwaar]

Guelwaar, the Klitschkos always had good ratings on HBO. There was nothing dull or boring about Vitali's style, he threw a lot of punches and nearly always stopped his opponents. HBO actually did show many of their fights.

Max Kellerman always disparaged the Klitschkos, but he tends to favor black boxers and dislikes and discredits other white boxers (for example, after Hatton KOed Castillo, he immediately said "Castillo is shot" rather than give fair credit). He would praise Ward for his ugly style of grappling, clinching and clamping, yet bash Wlad because late in his career he tended to clinch a lot. He would say despite their high KO ratios, the Klitschkos "carried" their opponents. Yet he ignored the fact that Mayweather would not try to stop overmatched opponents, just cruising to UD after UD.

Guelwaar, in fact most people like yourself who disparaged the Klitschkos did so because they were white, and the K bros were upsetting the status quo (black domination) in boxing. I noticed nearly all the people who continually bashed the Klitschkos on ESB and BS had a black fighter in their avatar. They would list just non-white boxers as their favorites, and also discredit other good white boxers like Calzaghe, Lomachenko, Marciano, etc.

If you really believe any of this absolute shyte you posted, you need divine intervention....we'll all be praying for your soul.

[Guelwaar]

I was at the excel London 2012, vasyl Lomachenko Is boxing a Dominican black kid, the white British cried around me are all cheering for the black Dominican, they had no idea who either was... Probably virtue signalling!! No black fans would randomly support a white foreigner over a black foreigner!!

not true...lomachenko had his first pro fight in 2013...in las vegas, USA

2012 is BEFORE 2013!!! I'm talking about the Olympic Games..Absolute retard

how about this theory? maybe they were rooting for the dominican guy to win because they knew he had no chance to beat the british fighter entered in the same weight class.

[Freedom2013]

not true...lomachenko had his first pro fight in 2013...in las vegas, USA

2012 is BEFORE 2013!!! I'm talking about the Olympic Games..Absolute retard

how about this theory? maybe they were rooting for the dominican guy to win because they knew he had no chance to beat the british fighter entered in the same weight class.

So you feel the same way about Lomachenko as you feel about the Klitschkos. How about this theory: Guelwaar is a racist.

[Guelwaar]

You seem to think the klitchsko era "proved" something about nature/nurture or some other phenomenon...

the klitchskos sucked so bad even HBO refused to air their fights...and those guys (wlad and vitali) were hw champs!...can you imagine HBO turning down the opportunity to air a holmes or tyson or holyfield or lewis or even a wilder championship fight?

to me, you're putting way too much weight on the race thing...i mean you put a lot on the shoulders of white fighters to prove or disprove theories related to nature or nurture... no one man should have to bear that much pressure. were you suicidal when wlad got ko'd by brewster and purrity and AJ? ....how about when davarryl williamson came this close to stopping wlad? or the sam peter fight?...did you almost sh*t yourself?

.you should be proud of your race whether they're good boxers or not...recognize that as humans we're all equal in value in different ways even if we're not the smartest or strongest or prettiest. but recognizing that takes being secure within yourself...>>>Guelwaar

Nature/Nurture debates have been argued and also suppressed for a long time. Volumes have been written on why certain groups have dominated certain fields. The Klits, like Tiger Woods have been good examples of the nurture argument. Yes, I think they were a good example of proof.

I'm not as anti Klitschko as you are. Sometimes I rooted for them, sometimes against them. HBO turned them down because culturally Americans were bored by them. It may be a Eastern/Western thing. Fury is entertaining. I can relate a bit to Lennox Lewis, Frank Bruno. The Klitschkos, not so much. They're style in and out of the ring simply did not capture people's imagination, at least not in North America.

I used to think we should be proud of our race until George Carlin set me straight. "You should be proud of accomplishments, not the way you were born." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the point.

nature vs nurture is an outdated theory long debunked by industrial psychologists...that is to say, there's a whole lot of other factors that determine ones fate as well as some more nuanced theories....for example, is fmj an example of nature or nurture? how about pacquiao? i'm just saying there may be other things that explain a fighter's success or lack thereof than simply the environment that they came up in, their inherent abilities and the quality of the teaching provided to them....IMO, rocky marciano sucked as a fighter...what made him successful was that the post-ww II era of boxing was very weak...really just a buncha old guys and over the hill lhw....still, he's recognized as an atg with that 49-0 record. IMO, chris byrd was a FAR superior fighter...byrd was a natural MIDDLEWEIGHT who reigned at HW for years...beat young, powerful, comparatively HUGE guys like david tua and vitali klitchko. but who do people remember more?

[Guelwaar]

2012 is BEFORE 2013!!! I'm talking about the Olympic Games..Absolute retard

how about this theory? maybe they were rooting for the dominican guy to win because they knew he had no chance to beat the british fighter entered in the same weight class.

So you feel the same way about Lomachenko as you feel about the Klitschkos. How about this theory: Guelwaar is a racist.

lol...You dumbass....trying to deflect from your obvious racism by calling me a racist...you're as racist and white supremacist as sh8t ...and it's written all over your retarded post....now go f8ck your white racist ass.

[jamamb]

[Guelwaar]

No.... However, it's difficult as hell debating with fans who ALWAYS root for "one of their own" and no amount of facts can change their mind. Used to argue all the time with a radio show host named Jesse Rican about his "picks" in matches because he ALWAYS picked Hispanics (because he was Hispanic).

speaking of radio shows, i remember reading a prediction in fight news magazine written just before holmes-cooney...and the writer picked cooney to KO holmes in five rounds. and i remember thinking to myself that this was really nothing more than a white guy rooting for one of his own to win...and nobody ever objected or called it racist...i mean, we're talking larry holmes here....FIVE rounds? what had cooney done to show he could stop a guy with holmes defensive skills with that kind of ease when nobody else had even come close? ...beaten some old dudes? but to me the shocking thing was that i had been raised to believe that people in the media, whether we're talking newspapers or magazines, prided themselves on their professional objectivity...that was a cornerstone of their profession...that the rest of us were supposed to trust they would not be swayed by personal biases and make every effort to remain impartial...i know, it sounds naive, but i was a kid back then and didn't know any better...i have since learned that the media is fulla shyte and so are journalists ( i actually know some of these guys personally, which only reinforced my lack of respect for them and their work)....so, i'm not at all surprised a guy would run a radio show JUST for the purpose of promoting the superiority of his people....it happens everywhere, i guess.

[asdfjkl]

not true...lomachenko had his first pro fight in 2013...in las vegas, USA

2012 is BEFORE 2013!!! I'm talking about the Olympic Games..Absolute retard

how about this theory? maybe they were rooting for the dominican guy to win because they knew he had no chance to beat the british fighter entered in the same weight class.

British fighter?

[DrDuke]

It is not wrong to root for fighters of your race. It is wrong to evaluate boxing skills depending on the race of the fighter and any other criterias, which make you want someone to win or lose.

[Enlightened-One]

It is not wrong to root for fighters of your race. It is wrong to evaluate boxing skills depending on the race of the fighter and any other criterias, which make you want someone to win or lose.

When you refer to “race”, is it in the context of biology (such as similar morphological and genetic traits i.e. skin colour) or ethnicity/culture (such as: nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin)?

So if you watched a random fight between two anonymous people possessing polar opposite skin complexions, you’d automatically support the person who looked more like yourself, whilst actively discouraging the person who least looked like you, without possessing any other pieces of information about those individuals?

I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong, I am simply asking you to clarify your thoughts.

[DrDuke]

When you refer to “race”, is it in the context of biology (such as similar morphological and genetic traits i.e. skin colour) or do you mean ethnicity (such as culture: nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin)?

I guess, the correct meaning of "race" is closer to your first definition, as race is a system of human populations, characterized by similarities in a set of specific hereditary biological features, which are presented as phenotypic attributes, while being formed in a certain geographic region.

So if you watched a random fight between two anonymous people possessing polar opposite skin complexions, you’d automatically support the person who looked more like yourself, whilst actively discouraging the person who least looked like you, without possessing any other pieces of information about those individuals?

Talking about me, I can not support or discourage somebody with only recognizing an individual's race and without possessing any other pieces of information about some individuals. And first of all I take into consideration an individual's boxing style and skills.

[Enlightened-One]

When you refer to “race”, is it in the context of biology (such as similar morphological and genetic traits i.e. skin colour) or do you mean ethnicity (such as culture: nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin)?

I guess, the correct meaning of "race" is closer to your first definition, as race is a system of human populations, characterized by similarities in a set of specific hereditary biological features, which are presented as phenotypic attributes, while being formed in a certain geographic region.

So if you watched a random fight between two anonymous people possessing polar opposite skin complexions, you’d automatically support the person who looked more like yourself, whilst actively discouraging the person who least looked like you, without possessing any other pieces of information about those individuals?

Talking about me, I can not support or discourage somebody with only recognizing an individual's race and without possessing any other pieces of information about some individuals. And first of all I take into consideration an individual's boxing style and skills.

Assuming all things being equal, which means that both pugilists (possessing polar opposite skin complexions) coming from almost identical backgrounds and both adopting the same fighting style, you’d automatically support the person who looked more like yourself, whilst actively opposing the other?

[Tony1244]

You seem to think the klitchsko era "proved" something about nature/nurture or some other phenomenon...

the klitchskos sucked so bad even HBO refused to air their fights...and those guys (wlad and vitali) were hw champs!...can you imagine HBO turning down the opportunity to air a holmes or tyson or holyfield or lewis or even a wilder championship fight?

to me, you're putting way too much weight on the race thing...i mean you put a lot on the shoulders of white fighters to prove or disprove theories related to nature or nurture... no one man should have to bear that much pressure. were you suicidal when wlad got ko'd by brewster and purrity and AJ? ....how about when davarryl williamson came this close to stopping wlad? or the sam peter fight?...did you almost sh*t yourself?

.you should be proud of your race whether they're good boxers or not...recognize that as humans we're all equal in value in different ways even if we're not the smartest or strongest or prettiest. but recognizing that takes being secure within yourself...>>>Guelwaar

Nature/Nurture debates have been argued and also suppressed for a long time. Volumes have been written on why certain groups have dominated certain fields. The Klits, like Tiger Woods have been good examples of the nurture argument. Yes, I think they were a good example of proof.

I'm not as anti Klitschko as you are. Sometimes I rooted for them, sometimes against them. HBO turned them down because culturally Americans were bored by them. It may be a Eastern/Western thing. Fury is entertaining. I can relate a bit to Lennox Lewis, Frank Bruno. The Klitschkos, not so much. They're style in and out of the ring simply did not capture people's imagination, at least not in North America.

I used to think we should be proud of our race until George Carlin set me straight. "You should be proud of accomplishments, not the way you were born." I'm paraphrasing, but that was the point.

nature vs nurture is an outdated theory long debunked by industrial psychologists...that is to say, there's a whole lot of other factors that determine ones fate as well as some more nuanced theories....for example, is fmj an example of nature or nurture? how about pacquiao? i'm just saying there may be other things that explain a fighter's success or lack thereof than simply the environment that they came up in, their inherent abilities and the quality of the teaching provided to them....IMO, rocky marciano sucked as a fighter...what made him successful was that the post-ww II era of boxing was very weak...really just a buncha old guys and over the hill lhw....still, he's recognized as an atg with that 49-0 record. IMO, chris byrd was a FAR superior fighter...byrd was a natural MIDDLEWEIGHT who reigned at HW for years...beat young, powerful, comparatively HUGE guys like david tua and vitali klitchko. but who do people remember more?

I can tell by your first sentence you don't know what nature and nurture are in this context. Read up on it, and then get back, if you'd like.

Nature vs nurture is NOT a theory. Everything is one or the other or a combination of both.

[DrDuke]

Assuming all things being equal, which means that both pugilists (possessing polar opposite skin complexions) coming from almost identical backgrounds and both adopting the same fighting style, you’d automatically support the person who looked more like yourself, whilst actively opposing the other?

Yes.

[Tony1244]

Assuming all things being equal, which means that both pugilists (possessing polar opposite skin complexions) coming from almost identical backgrounds and both adopting the same fighting style, you’d automatically support the person who looked more like yourself, whilst actively opposing the other?

Yes.

I appreciate your honesty but color is just one dimension of looks.

[Ilya Muromets]

"is it wrong to root for fighters of your race?"

When i want the approval of random jerks posting on a boxing forum about who i should root for I'll be sure to ask them.