Tweet
I mean, what is the point?
OK, your fighter may have been exposed and not been what you thought he might have been, but this isn't about being fans only of undefeated fighter, otherwise everyone would be a Mayweather or Calzaghe fan.
This is boxing, fighters lose. It's that vulnerability that makes boxing so unpredictable.
Let me give an example.
Before Pavlik got schooled by Hopkins, MacChamp was all over Pavlik. He even had this section in his sig decrying Calzaghe for ducking Pavlik.
Then, as soon as he lost, he reverts back to Calzaghe. What, a loss to Hopkins means Calzaghe didn't duck him after all? How does that logic work?
I'm not saying you have to be blindly loyal to a fighter. But to bum him incessantly, only to turn against him after a loss is ridiculous, IMHO.
It's not a competition.
OK, your fighter may have been exposed and not been what you thought he might have been, but this isn't about being fans only of undefeated fighter, otherwise everyone would be a Mayweather or Calzaghe fan.
This is boxing, fighters lose. It's that vulnerability that makes boxing so unpredictable.
Let me give an example.
Before Pavlik got schooled by Hopkins, MacChamp was all over Pavlik. He even had this section in his sig decrying Calzaghe for ducking Pavlik.
Then, as soon as he lost, he reverts back to Calzaghe. What, a loss to Hopkins means Calzaghe didn't duck him after all? How does that logic work?
I'm not saying you have to be blindly loyal to a fighter. But to bum him incessantly, only to turn against him after a loss is ridiculous, IMHO.
It's not a competition.
Comment