Is 1.e4 for heros and 1.d4 for cowards? elaborate.

Its a matter of taste and what you feel like playing at any giving time. If you say 1.d4 is for cowards only because 1.e4 mostly lead to a sharp position, i would disagree with you. Take for instance the GRUNFELD DEFENCE that arises from 1.d4 is a sharp one, or even the CLASSICAL KID where black attacks white kingside and white attack black kingside is also sharp. 

My conclusion here is that any position can become sharp, or strategic, or dull, or boring, or interesting. It all depends on the players handling the position. e.g Topalov can take even 1.b3 opening, and turn it into something sharp and unbalanced. Thank you

Benessy, PF and others - that is why this topic is fruitful/interesting. As my tutor used to say "No opening is unrefutable. Otherwise we'd all be playing it!" Excitement is gained from how you go about proving that statement to be true.

I agree 

e4 and d4 are for cowards, REAL players open with 1 g4!
for what it is worth (nothing), i don't :(

now seriously, people have different styles (which actually hardly can be implied from if one chooses e4 or d4, there are still SO MANY possibilities after the first move) and if you can't deal with it then that is your problem.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with "boring positional play" or "slow playing". someone might play like a "coward", but if you are losing every time, then ggs (✿◠‿◠)

Somehow people seem to think e4 is "macho" or something.  To me, e4 is for people who like play e4, and d4 is for people who like playing d4.  I almost always play d4 (or c4) and most of my games are over by move 30.  That doesn't really support the notion that d4 games are slow.

Tigran Petrosian described 1.d4 nicely. He said it was like a left-handed serve in tennis. I doubt anyone would call John McEnroe cowardly, at least not to his face.

I'm pro BDG (best of both worlds :p)

Not all d4 games are necessarily boring and positional. Some might even lead to exciting and extremely tactical games - let's not forget that the game between Fischer and Bryne (aka the the Game of the Century) emerged to from a transposed d4 game. True, most e4 lines belong to the adventurous tactician who loves beautiful combinations, and even truer that most d4 lines end after tiring and dreary end games, but since there are always exceptions, it might be difficult to state that one is better or more 'heroic than the other'. We can, however, decide which one brings fun most often, and that, without doubt, is e4!

Nice one, SmyslovFan. 

the word "draw" springs to mind quickly.

i guess john probably wouldn't need to get a thread locked if someone spelled out a home truth or two to him.

I have a favorite chess piece and i like d4!

1 e4 is for boorish types who talk loudly in restaurants.  And 1 d4 is for shifty-eyed, evasive characters.  Nixon would've played 1 d4.

Don't even ask me about 1 c4.

1.Nf3 is for the monied. Prancin' around on their fancy horses.

"Punks jump up to get beat down" - those lyrics come to mind

With that in mind i like d4 and not getting beat down so call me a coward. lol.

1 g3 is for guys who look like this:

Hey you stole my avatar

lol

The guy who plays

1.f3  . . .e6

2.g4

looks like this . . . 

1 a3 is for guys who look like this:

i wrote about this question in another forum ,   the problem with 1.d4 is that many players in low levels  play systems really cowards like Colle with pawns in e3-c3-d4  and sometimes Bishop f4.  Or systems with g3 -e3 -d3 , etc .   They give the initiative to black player because of this , yes, sometimes 1.d4 is for cowards players .