Comments Thread For: “Fighting Words” — Justifying HBO’s Broner Infatuation

[Tony B.]

You couldn't be more wrong. First, Robotic Klitchko would have a massively hard time with Broner's speed, power and athleticism. Broner by brutal (maybe fatal) early stoppage. Second, boxing needs people with PERSONALITY, something the Klitchkos are seriously devoid of.

Be honest, whether you love him or hate him, you and millions of other haters will tune in to watch Broner, if nothing more than to see him lose! Putting butts in seats is what matters most in boxing and Broner, like Mayweather does a great job of this.

First off, Im not a Broner "hater". Sure he acts like a buffoonish stereotype, but I'm more concerned about his skill in the ring. Thus far, he has proved worthy of the hype. But calling the Klitschos devoid of personality is just silly. These men are sportsmen in every sense of the word. They are educated, respectful, philanthropic, and overall great ambassadors for the sport. They have class, character and positive personalities. Broner is a loud-mouthed punk who lacks discretion or humility outside of the ring. He has a negative and detrimental personality. This of course appeals to a certain segment of society, but it is the lower stata of society. Anyone emulating him but lacking his natural gifts, does not have much of a future.

[bushleaguer666]

He's alright, but why the ***** gotta have his mouth open looking dumb as hell with every punch.

[jcamarena79]

This kid Broner has alot of talent but not what HBO makes him out to be. Broner needs to step it up a notch in competition, maybe Gamboa or Rios will be a good test for him. He looked so vulnerable to hand speed and not the greatest defense on his part, Gamboa or Rios would just destroy HBO's little fantasy dream.

[liuj88]

Female boxers don't tend to be as 'legitimately skilled' as male boxers, in part because far more males box than females do.

According to Boxrec, the most populated division for females has 145 fighters, while there are several divisions in which there are over 1000 male fighters. In men's boxing the standard of competition is much highee and there are far more knockouts, so the lack of sex parity in promotion is justified in my opinion.

You're right about there not being as many female boxers as there are male. But isn't this true for MMA as well? Also, the discrepancy in numbers (and skill, perhaps) does not adequately explain all the hype that Ronda Rousey is currently receiving.

(Side notes: I see nothing special about Rousey's--or any woman's--being the "first" to fight in the UFC. Firstly, her opponent, Liz Carmouche, will step into the cage before she does. Secondly, there are other leagues that have featured women's MMA, and for longer. Thirdly, the UFC hardly represents women's MMA, and for them to present Rousey's upcoming fight as "historic" is, truly, no more than hype. The UFC is a league, not the sport.)

The column's point re: women's boxing is very well taken. I lament the lack of attention given to the women in the sport we love. I think the women's side of the sport is stuck in a chicken-and-egg dilemma: Which comes first, the attention and the money and glory, or the rise of attractive, marketable participants? If nothing else, can't HBO's "Real Sports" at least have a show about this very conundrum?

[liuj88]

No doubt about it. I can only speak for myself, but Broner did his job when it came to this viewer. Whether I even like him as a person or not is irrelevant. He got me to watch last night with great interest. Now would I have watched any HBO boxing card last night? Sure, but...with the same interest? Most cards probably not.

I mean for f**k's sake I was excited about a card with a main event that included Gavin Rees (with all due respect to Rees).

I speak for myself too, when I say that Broner's attitude *is* relevant. Behaving like an arrogant buffoon after a fight shows great disrespect to his opponent, the sport, and fans like me. In fact, his attitude makes his talent irrelevant, not the other way around.

[liuj88]

Wow, a lot of venom and hatred there. Mind if I ask what 3rd world country you are from? It seems you have failed to realize that most boxers have less than glorious backgrounds. Many have been in the streets and had hard backgrounds and were "rescued" by boxing.

It's sad that self righteous people like you sit back and judge a man for his past and yet you are just as flawed as he is. In America we call these people HYPOCRITES.

You may be right, perhaps he has not changed his ways, only time will tell.

A boxer's background, "glorious" or not, does not change the fact that he has to behave properly, if he wants to attract more fans. As things stand, he's not gaining more fans, he's just polarizing them.

[Mike D]

I speak for myself too, when I say that Broner's attitude *is* relevant. Behaving like an arrogant buffoon after a fight shows great disrespect to his opponent, the sport, and fans like me. In fact, his attitude makes his talent irrelevant, not the other way around.

Hey no argument here, Broner is pretty much classless scum.