What Is A Hater?

More importantly: People need to learn the difference between a "fan" and a "nuthugger".

Addison isn't a hater. He always argues rationally and makes valid points, its just he sometimes seems to get mad if you then disagree with them! No offense intended Addison, just playing :) Not quite. I rip back when people don't show any integrity and start tossing about insults. :fing02:

IMO to put a hater definition in a nutshell...someone whose just an ignorant f**k towards another boxers accomplishments, talent and status and the winner of the THREAD IS.................................... " I AM " "I HATE HATERS" I am a HATER oF HATERS

IMO to put a hater definition in a nutshell...someone whose just an ignorant f**k towards another boxers accomplishments, talent and status

Addison isn't a hater. He always argues rationally and makes valid points, its just he sometimes seems to get mad if you then disagree with them! No offense intended Addison, just playing :) True Addison dues use rational and logic for his fight choices however I just dont think he likes Cotto for whatever reason. When it comes to Cotto his arguements a rational of what can be POSSIBLE get transmorphed into what is PROBABLE. Possible and probable can get blurred for anyone who is a big fan of someone that is why I dont bet money on my favorite fighters and only bet points.

Eample of a classic hater: Amazing example in fact. All bums! :ugh:

Example of a classic hater: Please!! I'm sorry but I just can't jump on the PBF train. Take a look at his record and tell me what makes him great. He beat Diego Corrales, Jose Luis Castillo, Oscar De La Hoya, and Ricky Hatton. Just about every other fighter was over rated or just a plain no body. ODH was 34 well past his prime. Many think (my self included) he lost the first Castillo fight and Hatton well. Watching a skill-less fighter, fight a Pro is not exciding for me. If PBF wants to go down as the best he better step it up. Right now he is just a BUM killer or waits till someone retires, comes back, retires again, comes back again then fights him! He will not fight Cotto simply cause Cotto is to big of a threat. He will wait a few more years and then maybe fight him if we are lucky. Hell Tito has a more impressive record if you take away his fights at 160.

:lol1: ^ Good un, Scoooter. I see one post after another describing what a hater I'm not. Addison isn't a hater. He always argues rationally and makes valid points, its just he sometimes seems to get mad if you then disagree with them! No offense intended Addison, just playing :)

Addison's a hater. :fuckyou: :lol1: ^ Good un, Scoooter. I see one post after another describing what a hater I'm not.

Someone who puts points on a certain fighter's opponent three fights in a row, even though they keep winning. :banana: :lol1: :lol1:

Green K. :banana: expect the same service in return kind sir

Definition of Hate: when floyd fans see a post saying that cotto has got even a remote chance of beating floyd with reasonable points. You cant reason with those "haters" because all they see is that cocksucker flashing his smile while counting his dough. the result of that hate: Lot's of red k's, and one star ratings, one over the other is not enough, they want it both.......shit's redicilous Green K. :banana: 100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3

A hater is someone who can't offer an objective opinion due to their hate for a boxer. An example of this would be someone who says Cory Spinks sucks and is bad for boxing because he is a "runner." The objective fact is that Cory Spinks is actually a two division champion who also went heads up with the legitimate champion in a third division. Any objective opinion would say that Spinks is very good. But a hater only makes statements based on some personal bias and will not see beyond that bias regardless of what anyone else says. So, the reason we see so many people being called Mayweather haters is because much of the criticism is based on style as opposed to substance. The criticism that is based on substance (e.g. critique of opponents) is heavily biased (i.e. "Margarito has never had an easy fight...while Mayweather fights nothing but hand picked opponents.") requires such an extreme lack of proper discernment that one would have to disregard many facts in order to believe it. The problem with haters is that they really do not intend to have a debate at all. Instead, they want everyone to think as they do, which is in a decidedly biased way. If people present them with facts that run counter to the hater's biases then the hater will usually either repeat the same refuted opinion over and over or try to discredit the fact-monger's credibility with wild left field statements and accusations. Yup. Excellent post.

Definition of Hate: when floyd fans see a post saying that cotto has got even a remote chance of beating floyd with reasonable points. You cant reason with those "haters" because all they see is that cocksucker flashing his smile while counting his dough. the result of that hate: Lot's of red k's, and one star ratings, one over the other is not enough, they want it both.......shit's redicilous

Addison's a hater. :fuckyou:

A hater is someone who can't offer an objective opinion due to their hate for a boxer. An example of this would be someone who says Cory Spinks sucks and is bad for boxing because he is a "runner." The objective fact is that Cory Spinks is actually a two division champion who also went heads up with the legitimate champion in a third division. Any objective opinion would say that Spinks is very good. But a hater only makes statements based on some personal bias and will not see beyond that bias regardless of what anyone else says. So, the reason we see so many people being called Mayweather haters is because much of the criticism is based on style as opposed to substance. The criticism that is based on substance (e.g. critique of opponents) is heavily biased (i.e. "Margarito has never had an easy fight...while Mayweather fights nothing but hand picked opponents.") requires such an extreme lack of proper discernment that one would have to disregard many facts in order to believe it. The problem with haters is that they really do not intend to have a debate at all. Instead, they want everyone to think as they do, which is in a decidedly biased way. If people present them with facts that run counter to the hater's biases then the hater will usually either repeat the same refuted opinion over and over or try to discredit the fact-monger's credibility with wild left field statements and accusations.

Someone who puts points on a certain fighter's opponent three fights in a row, even though they keep winning. :banana:

Someone who will root for whoever is going against a certain team/fighter/athlete. Its different than just liking one guy more than another, HATE has to be rooting for anyone who goes against them. i.e. A Yankee fan would cheer for his team to beat Oakland A's and root against the A's during the game or series but wouldn't necessarily cheer against them if they played someone else. Many Yankee fans would cheer for whatever team went against the Boston and vice versa.

Someone without an objective opinion on shit. Their clouded by their dislike for a fighter and refuse to give him credit regardless of his accomplishments. They'll usually degrade a fighter they hate on without backin up the hate with proven facts as to why he sucks, is overrated, would lose to so and so, etc. And of course bein a rival to a hater's favorite fighter is an invitation for hate from ignorant people. Excellent post, agreed. Someone who's main agenda is not to support a boxer but to disparage another. Even worse when they basically ignore that boxers achievements and say they are no good when they clearly are. Good points here as well.

Your definition of a hater within the context of our sport. Someone who's main agenda is not to support a boxer but to disparage another. Even worse when they basically ignore that boxers achievements and say they are no good when they clearly are.