[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Not really at all, but nice try trying to trip me up using my own terminology.

Someone can be likable even if they don't have a huge personality. It's easy to like people like David Beckham because of his achievements and because he seems like a nice person.

It's ridiculous to nominate Tyson Fury, he may have a louder personality than most but it's also repugnant. He isn't likable. The fact that he's an awful human being overrides his achievements and makes him a strange nomination for a 'Sports Personality' award.

I was not trying to trip you up - this isn't personal. I was responding to your post.

Like all contentious subjects, it all comes down in the end to our own opinions and perceptions. I am an avid boxing fan so Fury's achievement - for me - is collossal and for that alone he deserves recognition and an award.

Do I think that his idiotic comments are offensive? YES.

Do I think that they should win him a 'Human of The Year' award? NO.

And as idiotic and offensive as some of his comments are, they are LESS idiotic and offensive than many comments and acts of other famous people who have attained lofty positions or capitalised on such traits to become rich and even more famous, and I do not believe that these 'gaffes' should prevent Fury winning Sports Personality of The Year'.

If he does NOT win it - it should NOT be for the reasons people are citing. In my opinion.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Like all contentious subjects, it all comes down in the end to our own opinions and perceptions. I am an avid boxing fan so Fury's achievement - for me - is collossal and for that alone he deserves recognition and an award.

He has recognition and an award though - he is World Heavyweight Champion and anyone with a vague interest in sports is aware of the circumstances of his victory. For anyone who doesn't have any interest in Sports... well... the whole thing is irrelevant, surely.

In my opinion, being honest, the "Sports Personality" award should really go to someone in the world of sports who has done or achieved something that hasn't been recognised through their own sport - e.g. setting up a sports center for troubled kids, going above and beyond with charity work, or even just doing a lot to really further and drive their sport forward. If there was a Sporting Achievement award for something that could be considered above the norm (which does apply in this case, it's a fascinating story) then there's no reason he shouldn't be considered.

But he has really done nothing at all for the image of Boxing. In fact, he has done and said a lot to really set the sport back decades; back to the image of boxing not as a professional and disciplined art... but a slugging match for aggressive, thuggish, unintelligent blokes. Back to the days of Tyson Original biting off ears, etc. An image which it was starting to pull away from.