Hey, I don't hate Kirby, at least not early Kirby.
I'm currently reading "Showcase Presents: The Challengers of the Unknown" and it's beautiful stuff. In fact, I've jumped ahead to read the Bob Brown stuff at the end of the book quickly, so I can go back and savor the Kirby/Wood stories when I can devote the time they deserve.
I am frankly in awe of Kirby's compositions, camera angles, figure poses, technology, vehicles and architecture and the sense of authenticity (if not exactly "reality") he imparts to just about everything, from ancient cities to the wildest gizmos of the future. His figures have weight and when they defy physics, or just gravity, you feel like it's because they're bigger than the laws of nature, not because the artist just doesn't "get" them. In fact I've spent a ridiculous amount of time just admiring how garments hang on his figures (I love the looser outfits he gives the Challs, compared to the standard spandex look of later artists).
It's just that, for my money, Kirby's at his best with an inker who can preserve his strengths while glossing over his weak points. Joe Sinnot springs to mind, with his smooth curves, spot-on use of blacks and a knack for glamorous faces that makes him, for me, the Marvel version of Murphy Anderson. Wally Wood was probably Kirby's best inker -- he shared Sinnot's knack for glamour but also shared Kirby's genius for making fake technology look legit, and figures look weighty and "3-D". Their collaboration on the Challengers and the earlier "Sky Masters" newspaper strip was arguably some of the most gorgeous work ever produced for comics.
BUT...there's always a but...I grew up in the Bronze Age and my perceptions of Kirby will always be filtered through that lens. In the 70s, "Kirby" meant Devil Dinosaur, Captain America, Black Panther...and later there was SuperPowers and Captain Victory and so on. I found all of those repulsive, not to put too fine a point on it. Besides the fact that Kirby wrote the books, and writing was NOT his thing, to me all the characters were ugly and weird, their bodies twisted to impossible poses, often for no particular reason, their noses tiny little things beneath their beetle brows and their foreheads and cheekbones highlighted with a "squiggle" that suggested their epidermis was encased in lucite. And, as most artists tend to do if they hang on long enough, Kirby developed a series of stock poses that appeared again and again in his later years. My opinion was "been there, seen that, didn't like it the first time."
It took a lot of time for me to "discover" Kirby -- the King -- as he was in his earlier work, and now I'm enough of a fan to have bought a good number of "Kirby Collector" magazines, all the Fantastic Four Essentials and Masterworks I can afford, and so on. Once or twice, I've decided that my aversion to Kirby in the 70s was simply the result of being a Neal Adams fanboy, obsessed with "realism" and too unschooled to appreciate true genius. But then I pick up trade paperbacks of those Cap or Black Panter stories and I have to admit, "Nope...still hate it."
So, am I guilty of taking a cheap shot at Jack earlier in this thread? Sure, but that's what I do.

Does it mean I have contempt for Kirby? No. If nothing else, I've developed a respect for him that modifies my youthful distate. Where I once saw him as a hack who phoned in his work, now I believe he was just a very unique talent whose work never stopped evolving as long as he was working (which was pretty much until he died)...the trouble is it eventually evolved into something I no longer had a taste for. And I certainly wasn't alone in that.