why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
just wondering, is it some type of psychological bias? seems almost exclusively used for black fighters.
a guy like lomachenko has excellent speed, agility, timing, etc. yet i hear athletic far more to describe a guy like wilder, who tbf id say fits that bill
manny pac in his prime was ultra quick and explosive and could put together ridiculous rapid fire combos. could bounce around swiftly too.
and then guys like george groves and saunders are fast and snappy, with there punches and movements, and seem to have sharp reflexes. yet a guy like eubank was considered the athletic one.
linares too.....fast and agile
yet 'very althetic' 'natural athlete' 'athleticism' seem like qualities that are almost exclusively assigned to black fighters, as if only they have them
a guy like lomachenko has excellent speed, agility, timing, etc. yet i hear athletic far more to describe a guy like wilder, who tbf id say fits that bill
manny pac in his prime was ultra quick and explosive and could put together ridiculous rapid fire combos. could bounce around swiftly too.
and then guys like george groves and saunders are fast and snappy, with there punches and movements, and seem to have sharp reflexes. yet a guy like eubank was considered the athletic one.
linares too.....fast and agile
yet 'very althetic' 'natural athlete' 'athleticism' seem like qualities that are almost exclusively assigned to black fighters, as if only they have them
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Come on Jammy, you know these type of topics degrade by about the 4th or 5th post 
-
TheGingerBomber
- Lightweight
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 13:18
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
I know what you mean, for instance Josh Kelly I would say is very athletic (maybe I'm the only one)....but I bet he's quick across the track and he's extremely agile and flexible.
Just one of those things, beast is another word used to describe a black boxer or a big black centre forward, it's sort of a racist word but in no way do I think it should be seen as offensive!
Just one of those things, beast is another word used to describe a black boxer or a big black centre forward, it's sort of a racist word but in no way do I think it should be seen as offensive!
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
ya, kelly came to mind too
kiwi,....i know ppl can descend into chaos with race stuff, but i am genuinely curious about this and if other ppl notice it
it just seems like no matter how fast, agile, etc, if a boxers not black they dont get considered as particularly athletically gifted
it might be more of an american phenomenon
kiwi,....i know ppl can descend into chaos with race stuff, but i am genuinely curious about this and if other ppl notice it
it just seems like no matter how fast, agile, etc, if a boxers not black they dont get considered as particularly athletically gifted
it might be more of an american phenomenon
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Never heard Whyte or Chisora being discribed as either.
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
neither really possess the physical attributes that ppl seem to consider atletic
the issues more that certain fighters do fit the bill for those attributes , but if there hispanic, white, asian etc they dont get the same natural athlete/athletiscm treatment that seems demographically reserved
the issues more that certain fighters do fit the bill for those attributes , but if there hispanic, white, asian etc they dont get the same natural athlete/athletiscm treatment that seems demographically reserved
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
funny thing is ive actually seen him described as such more then ppl like loma
as i said before, maybe its an american thing, to look at the top in the nba etc and just associate the brothers with athleticsm
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Maybe. It is an odd phenomena.
Muscle definition shows better on darker skin too, that's why all those white body builders are orange.
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
In the cases of Wilder and Eubank, i would say that neither has a particularly well developed boxing brain and rely heavily on natural attributes to win fights.
So their respective athleticism is their most notable quality.
Cleverly is an example of a non black boxer known more for his athleticism than his boxing skill.
So their respective athleticism is their most notable quality.
Cleverly is an example of a non black boxer known more for his athleticism than his boxing skill.
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Thing is, "athletic" is such a wide term. In a very real sense someone like Froch, for example, was definitely an athletic fighter - his extraordinary fitness and strength won him many fights his skills couldn't.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Why are non Ghanian fighter never called teak tough?
-
world ranked
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2199
- Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 14:21
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Froch and athletic not sure about that. It a lot of his fights he seemed clunky. If you watch Froch vs Dirrell or Pascal the froch wasn't in the same category as an athlete.dookus wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 19:20 Thing is, "athletic" is such a wide term. In a very real sense someone like Froch, for example, was definitely an athletic fighter - his extraordinary fitness and strength won him many fights his skills couldn't.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Frochs engine was the pretty much the definition of athleticism. One of the fittest fighters of recent times and a big part of his success.world ranked wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 22:39Froch and athletic not sure about that. It a lot of his fights he seemed clunky. If you watch Froch vs Dirrell or Pascal the froch wasn't in the same category as an athlete.dookus wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 19:20 Thing is, "athletic" is such a wide term. In a very real sense someone like Froch, for example, was definitely an athletic fighter - his extraordinary fitness and strength won him many fights his skills couldn't.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45235
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Athletic is about as meaningless as the word 'nice.'dookus wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 19:20 Thing is, "athletic" is such a wide term. In a very real sense someone like Froch, for example, was definitely an athletic fighter - his extraordinary fitness and strength won him many fights his skills couldn't.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45235
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Depends what you mean by athletic. It seems you take Athletic to mean agile, which is not what it means.world ranked wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 22:39Froch and athletic not sure about that. It a lot of his fights he seemed clunky. If you watch Froch vs Dirrell or Pascal the froch wasn't in the same category as an athlete.dookus wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 19:20 Thing is, "athletic" is such a wide term. In a very real sense someone like Froch, for example, was definitely an athletic fighter - his extraordinary fitness and strength won him many fights his skills couldn't.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
-
Deleted_Scenes
- Middleweight
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 29 Oct 2013, 17:02
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
I'm sure I heard darts players referred to as 'athletes' once...
![[icon_e_confused.gif] :confused:](./images/smilies/icon_e_confused.gif)
-
lillywhite14
- Heavyweight

Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Expected better from a man of your experience Coco.
Or maybe you’ve never watched a fight where one of the fighters was from Argentina? Those boys are teak tough...well, actually, maybe just tough, wild, durable? Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve even heard an Argie fighter described as teak tough! Damn
-
lillywhite14
- Heavyweight

Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Yep. Another misconception.jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 05:22Depends what you mean by athletic. It seems you take Athletic to mean agile, which is not what it means.world ranked wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 22:39Froch and athletic not sure about that. It a lot of his fights he seemed clunky. If you watch Froch vs Dirrell or Pascal the froch wasn't in the same category as an athlete.dookus wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 19:20 Thing is, "athletic" is such a wide term. In a very real sense someone like Froch, for example, was definitely an athletic fighter - his extraordinary fitness and strength won him many fights his skills couldn't.
Khan is another one - that speed of his can only be described as athletic.
I read a newspaper article where a coach from the GB Olympic squad followed Eddie Hall around for a day, watched him train and eat etc
Afterwards he said he was one of the most incredibly gifted athletes he’d ever seen. To be fair, pound for pound Eddie Hall is probably incredibly agile! Still, from a glance you’d forgive people for chuckling if they heard Eddie Hall being described as athletic.
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45235
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Eddie Hall was a national schoolboy champion swimmer wasn't he? He obviously was naturally athletic to begin with, but then I'd say that's going to be the case with all of those strongmen. Terry Hollands is another, he was a professional rugby player before turning to Strongman.lillywhite14 wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 06:42Yep. Another misconception.jamesmcdonnell wrote: ↑24 Mar 2018, 05:22Depends what you mean by athletic. It seems you take Athletic to mean agile, which is not what it means.world ranked wrote: ↑23 Mar 2018, 22:39
Froch and athletic not sure about that. It a lot of his fights he seemed clunky. If you watch Froch vs Dirrell or Pascal the froch wasn't in the same category as an athlete.
I read a newspaper article where a coach from the GB Olympic squad followed Eddie Hall around for a day, watched him train and eat etc
Afterwards he said he was one of the most incredibly gifted athletes he’d ever seen. To be fair, pound for pound Eddie Hall is probably incredibly agile! Still, from a glance you’d forgive people for chuckling if they heard Eddie Hall being described as athletic.
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
I noted a few other stereotypes that our commentators love to use in a thread a couple of years ago, this one definitely falls into that category.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... it=cliches
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... it=cliches
Re: why do non black fighters almost never get called athletic?
Because blacks are the superior race remember! Just ask big humble hole AJ 