Well, they are all very different poets, but there is definitely an emphasis on form, and unusual rhythmic, lyrical and syntactic effects. I have an aversion to the Romantics, as you can probably see, I don't care about the poem being a vehicle for someone's feelings or their amazing mind or personality. I like the use of language to convey and express moments, ideas or emotions in precise or surprising ways. There's an inherent difficulty and obliqueness to it. Sometimes sense is lost to sound, which can have its own new and invigorating effects and meanings (Hopkins, Loy). I like the idea of poems being either functional (Jonson's epigrams, Donne) or superficial/joyful (Frank O'Hara's 'I do this, I do that' rambles, Cummings) or beyond conventional norms (Loy, Pound, Cummings). I like the Tradition and the inherent narrative of its development and supersession - the seeds of self-destruction inherent in it. This doesn't explain why I loathe Larkin, at all, I realise.