Direct, idiomatic translation

Question

The phrase "not be much for" is more idiomatic and translates to "not enjoy" or "not be in the habit of". I have never heard it used in the positive, however. You might say "He's not much for taking walks" to mean "He doesn't enjoy taking walks".  However, I have never heard something like "He's much for taking walks". There's a positive version that's a bit more enthusiastic: "to be a great one for".  For example, "He's a great one for playing practical jokes".

Accepted Answer

Hola Tony
Yes, you are absolutely right.
The phrase 'not be much for' translates to 'not really like' or 'not be in the habit of'. For example, 'He's not much for taking walks' means 'He doesn't enjoy taking walks'. However, it cannot be used affirmatively; saying 'He's much for taking walks' is not idiomatic.
On the other hand, 'to be a great one for' is used in a positive sense. It means 'to really like', 'to be really good at', or 'to often do'. For instance, 'He's a great one for playing practical jokes' means 'He really enjoys and is often good at playing practical jokes'.
In summary, 'not be much for' conveys a lack of enjoyment or habit, while 'to be a great one for' expresses strong enthusiasm, skill, or frequent engagement in an activity.
Buen finde
Silvia