Legacy or Money

[kg0208]

If you were a boxer, which would be more important? Or would it be a weighted decision on a fight by fight basis and a combination of both? Honest....

[brooklyn1550]

3rd Option

[kg0208]

Arguments can be made for all three. Seems to me though, if you go for legacy, money will follow in most cases.

[Amsterdam]

Arguments can be made for all three. Seems to me though, if you go for legacy, money will follow in most cases.

Precisely, I'd seek the best and not just 'big names', but literally the best. If I was moving to LHW, I'd go for Chad Dawson, not Bernard Hopkins, Dawson in the end brings the more legacy points.

I'd also go for Calzaghe, but I'd get fucking annihilated, I could say I did my best.:yep

[garymcfall]

Id fight everyone, if i was at heavyweight right now id fight both Klitschos, Peter, Holyfield, Chaegev, Valuev, Maskaev, Rahman and Tua because not only would they make me some money theyd leave me with the best legacy i could get.

[Thread Stealer]

Both, but more so with money.

You can't make life easy for your grandkids and uncles and closest friends by saying "I was one of the greatest fighters ever, can I borrow some money?"

It's easy to say legacy, but hell, when I'm at work, I'm thinking about my paycheck.

And my job is about 1/100000000th as dangerous and grueling as a pro fighter.

[rr94]

get your money, save and invest your money, have a retirement plan to secure your family and yourself for the years after fighting. Then build your legacy. A few money fights will contribute to your legacy, build financial backing for you generate more money, recieve more network exposure, and as you BUILD your legacy after securing your future you can take on the best of the best to truly challenge yourself knowing your future and family is secure.

It's easy to say "legacy, i want to be great". Everyone does, and not nearly everyone makes it. It's easy to say I'd rather die poor but happy with my accomplishments, than rich and not happy...but in the end when you're career is cut short by a blood clot and you had no money because you jumped up in competition too early and never collected a big payday, and can't pay your medical bills or get a real job...trust me you'll have regrets.

I'd rather use my brain to secure myself financially (it is a career, it's 2007 not 1937) and do my best against the best before my career was over. Whatever i accomplished win or lose i tried against the best and kept my loved ones secure.

[Motor City Sam]

Both, but more so with money.

You can't make life easy for your grandkids and uncles and closest friends by saying "I was one of the greatest fighters ever, can I borrow some money?"

It's easy to say legacy, but hell, when I'm at work, I'm thinking about my paycheck.

And my job is about 1/100000000th as dangerous and grueling as a pro fighter.

Well said, EB. It's called "prize-fighting" for a reason.

[Marnoff]

I think it evolves throughout your career. Starting out you aren't necessarily thinking legacy, because you need money to put the bread on the table. Once you're established and make some big paydays you have the luxury of worrying about legacy. I would build my bank so that no one in my family would have to work for money again, then I would continue with legacy fights (which obviously would entail more money). In the end, legacy as a father or family-man (though I don't have any kids now) would be more important to me than legacy as a boxer. It has to be, otherwise you're a worthless person. The thing is that winning and money go hand-in-hand, so if you keep winning you'll get the money and the legacy. The big fights build both.

[IcanzIIravor]

Agreed. I'd try a combination of legacy and money, but if forced to choose one I'd pick money every time. If someone picks legacy over money then they aren't thinking straight. At your job are you thinking I just want to be remembered that I did a great job or are you trying to get paid as much as possible?

[TBooze]

Anyone who is a full time pro boxer and is not doing it predominantly for the money is either a liar or mad. A sport that is this dangerous has to be driven by capitalism.

[BigReg]

The answer is money. You will only make big money if you fight the fights that people want to see. By fighting fights that people want to see, you'll make more money, attract more fans, will be remembered longer, and will be thought of more highly in retirement. Simply fighting the best fighters out there is not neccessarily a smart move. Doing so could result in bad stylistic matchups that produce boring fights. Not only this, but you're greatly improving your chances of losing.

The way the sport is setup, losing too many fights and/or fighting too many ugly fights will hurt your marketablity and earning potential. You expose yourself to ending up broke and without much of a legacy. If you go for the big money fights, you not only will fatten your wallet, but you will be involved in entertaining fights, and fans will remember you longer. Look at Pac. There are better fighters at 130 than MAB. However, MAB has the biggest name and results in the biggest paycheck. This fight will look good on his resume. Guzman is better than MAB at this point, but does not bring much in the way of name recognition and money. Fighting Guzman would expose Pac to a higher chance of losing than would fighting MAB, and doesn't offer a higher reward.

[Mind Reader]

I have to be honest, you have to have money to survive so i would have to have money but I also would want a great legacy and would want to make the best fights happen.

[thewoo]

Once I die I can't enjoy shit. I won't benefit one bit by fuckers saying my name 100 year after I am dead so I would go for money that I can enjoy while I am alive.

[kg0208]

What is the low end of the pay scale for an elite level fighter in the lower weight classes?

BTW, I don't disagree with what anyone is saying, but I do feel that if you go looking for ONLY money, then you cannot be upset with where your legacy falls. And as a fan of a fighter like this, you cannot defend, at least not adequately, that fighters position in a rankings system, especially if they consistanly take money over legacy. If they are fighting for both money and legacy, your position is stronger.

BTW, I accidently picked the top one when I meant to pick the bottom one. But oh well lol.

[BigReg]

What is the low end of the pay scale for an elite level fighter in the lower weight classes?

BTW, I don't disagree with what anyone is saying, but I do feel that if you go looking for ONLY money, then you cannot be upset with where your legacy falls. And as a fan of a fighter like this, you cannot defend, at least not adequately, that fighters position in a rankings system, especially if they consistanly take money over legacy. If they are fighting for both money and legacy, your position is stronger.

BTW, I accidently picked the top one when I meant to pick the bottom one. But oh well lol.

Money = Legacy. If you go after the money, the legacy will follow.

[kg0208]

Money = Legacy. If you go after the money, the legacy will follow.
I could say the other way around as well. Great fighters fighting other great fighters and winning tend to get noticed and make money. Mosley is an example of this. Even with his losses he makes money.

Can you show me an elite fighter in the position to make this decision who didn't make money because he lost a few times while winning a few times as well and taking on the best? Recent times BTW....not the 60's where they made nowhere near the money they make now, even in comparison to inflation.

And what do posters here mean by "money"? Its why I asked what the lower level of income is for an elite fighter. If you are saying you would choose the 5 mil fight over the 2 mil fight even though the 2 mil fight was a far better fighter, I will understand it, but you can certainly live off of both and I will judge your legacy accordingly.

I see some saying you could be broke going for legacy....if you make 6 figures a fight and end up broke, you aren't very bright.

[BigReg]

I could say the other way around as well. Great fighters fighting other great fighters and winning tend to get noticed and make money. Mosley is an example of this. Even with his losses he makes money.

Can you show me an elite fighter in the position to make this decision who didn't make money because he lost a few times while winning a few times as well and taking on the best? Recent times BTW....not the 60's where they made nowhere near the money they make now, even in comparison to inflation.

And what do posters here mean by "money"? Its why I asked what the lower level of income is for an elite fighter. If you are saying you would choose the 5 mil fight over the 2 mil fight even though the 2 mil fight was a far better fighter, I will understand it, but you can certainly live off of both and I will judge your legacy accordingly.

I see some saying you could be broke going for legacy....if you make 6 figures a fight and end up broke, you aren't very bright.

Hence, money=legacy. However, I'm going to have to deviate from that a little. Money and legacy will go hand and hand as long as the legacy fight will produce an exciting fight, or at least a fight that gets people excited. Read my earlier post and pay attention to the part about Pac to see what I'm talking about.

[kg0208]

Hence, money=legacy. However, I'm going to have to deviate from that a little. Money and legacy will go hand and hand as long as the legacy fight will produce an exciting fight, or at least a fight that gets people excited. Read my earlier post and pay attention to the part about Pac to see what I'm talking about.
I read it. I didn't comment on it because that is a single fight scenario. If you were to tell me that fighting names who aren't the best fighters but bring in money won't hurt your legacy, then I would have commented on it. I get what you're saying though.

[Marnoff]

I see some saying you could be broke going for legacy....if you make 6 figures a fight and end up broke, you aren't very bright.

This is an important point, because the fact is that if someone can't retire on five million, they won't be able to retire on fifty million. Money management is a matter of mentality, not amount/quantity.

[Marnoff]

Hence, money=legacy.

That isn't the only statement you made, though. Money = Legacy works as Legacy = Money since it's commutative, but you also added the premise, "If you go after the money, the legacy will follow", which is what I think was being responded to, since it is possible to reverse that.

[BigReg]

I read it. I didn't comment on it because that is a single fight scenario. If you were to tell me that fighting names who aren't the best fighters but bring in money won't hurt your legacy, then I would have commented on it. I get what you're saying though.

Yes, this is many times the case. This is case in Pac situation. There are many times when a fighter can have a choice between two fighters and fight the lesser fighter for more money without hurting his legacy.

[kg0208]

Yes, this is many times the case. This is case in Pac situation. There are many times when a fighter can have a choice between two fighters and fight the lesser fighter for more money without hurting his legacy.
In a one, maybe two fight scenario, yes. Not consistantly. There is a reason that people are starting to say "Pacman needs to fight a prime champion". After a while, people will start calling for you to fight the best fighter. If Pacman, who hasn't fought a prime championship level fighter since 04 IMO, continues to fight past it fighters for the money, instead of prime champions, he will hurt his legacy IMO. PBF was starting to, thus the backlash against him for a while.

Legacy doesn't ALWAYS follow money, which is what I thought you were saying. You will have to fight dangerous great fighters despite the money they bring at some point to be considered great. Every great fighter did....And if you are great, you will be the money man anyways, and will make money no matter what at some point.

[MrStayman]

Legacy for me. When/if I have to support a family, that opinion may change though.

[jimmy1991]

Legacy 4 sure but u need money to live so the 3rd option

[igotJUIC3]

Winky Wright a great fight fought pretty mmuch everyone and doestn duck anyone but hasnt seen a payday of Floyd who chooses big money fights.....hell i'll go as far as to say Winky is very much overlooked by many people but he is a great boxer....however....he fought everyone and has lost or looked bad because of a style match-up which hurts his marketability.

[LiamE]

All the legacy in the world didn't help Louis when the tax man came knocking.

[_J_G_]

Money, anyone that says other wise is lying. Simple as that

[rikanlink]

real talk. id go with money. but id try to establish a legacy while making that money. the way i look at it. times are hard now days and if u can establish enough money to retire early like floyd claims to b doing then ur good. you'd have no finacial worries for the rest of your life. unfortunalety money talks. and we are all going to witness that in sept when we the part 2 of the worst fight of 2007.

[Decebal]

If I were better than average, with the chance of becoming good, e.g. Thysse: I'd go for money, but would give my best at all times and never take fights where I am expected to sell my skin.

If I were good, with the chance of becoming very good, e.g. Bika: I'd go for legacy until I entered my peak, and then, I would go for a combination of legacy and money. Bika is a better man than I, in his position.

If I were very good and had a good chance of being border-line elite, e.g. Bute: I would go for legacy, no doubt. I would fight the fights best able to prepare me for the big time, and then go for the best, as soon as I'm entering my peak, win or lose, time after time...daring to be great, so - legacy. Money would obviously come with that. I wouldn't say no to big-money fights either, but only after hitting my peak, when I start to fade a bit.

If I were better than very good (border-line elite) hoping to become elite, e.g. Kessler: I would definitely go for legacy. A lot of money would come with that. I would only take big money fights at the end of my career, and only if I still have a good chance of winning.

If I were elite, with the chance of becoming an ATG e.g. Calzaghe, I'd go for legacy only. A lot of money would come with that, but I would only take the biggest legacy-building fights out there. Wouldn't look at money at all, at any stage of my career.

[PH|LLA]

i would go for both, but they often go hand in hand

[DamonD]

3rd option.

While "legacy" sounds like the honourable choice, too many exceptional fighters have ended up skint and broken-down for me to think that the money side isn't equally as important. The reality of the situation is that so few fighters ever make it truly to the top of the tree with the big money fights (and some of the still end up broke), that a degree of financial accumen and 'money sense' is utterly crucial for a boxer.

[Asterion]

I would like to get money and legassy.

Probably like Leonard, Hagler, etc.

I would not focus only in money, because I would want to be remembered.

I would not focus only in legassy, because I would probably end up poor. And probably with brain damage like Eric Morales.

[jc]

One hand washes the other. Money comes with fighting big names.

Overral though in like and not on a boxing forum, money is what really matters.

[TFFP]

Legacy for me

You don't really achieve anything legacy wise without fighting big fights and the money comes naturally

That said, I'd always fight the up and comers I thought were best, rather than past it names just for money. It gets to a point when you have millions and millions, and it becomes nothing more than a figure. What can you do with all that money really? It's nothing more than ego

[Illmatic]

the biggest fights add the most to your legacy. The biggest fights bring the most money.

20 years from now, people will look at Floyds record and say, "wow, check it out, after winning the welterweight title, he beat an atg at a higher weight class."

If he would've fought Margo they wouldn't even list it as one of his top 10 victories.

[SgrRyLeonard]

Legacy or a combination of the two. It would probably depend on how good I was. If I was at Mayweather, Pacquiao, or Calzaghe's level, I'd fight the best guys out there; the money would come.

[kg0208]

the biggest fights add the most to your legacy. The biggest fights bring the most money.

20 years from now, people will look at Floyds record and say, "wow, check it out, after winning the welterweight title, he beat an atg at a higher weight class."

If he would've fought Margo they wouldn't even list it as one of his top 10 victories.

Yes, but what will they say when they see he fought him again with 2 unbeaten WW titlists in his division AND that he hadn't fought a WW since winning the belt. They will wonder if he was ONLY in it for the money.

He needs to do both. Fighting DLH adds more money than fighting Cotto. How much more? No idea. However, I think the amount of legacy added to PBF for beating Cotto right now as opposed to beating DLH again is greater in significance in the difference of the money he will get from fighting them.

[bestdefense117]

Money lasts till you die but a Lagacy is forever.

[splatter69]

get your money, save and invest your money, have a retirement plan to secure your family and yourself for the years after fighting. Then build your legacy. A few money fights will contribute to your legacy, build financial backing for you generate more money, recieve more network exposure, and as you BUILD your legacy after securing your future you can take on the best of the best to truly challenge yourself knowing your future and family is secure.

It's easy to say "legacy, i want to be great". Everyone does, and not nearly everyone makes it. It's easy to say I'd rather die poor but happy with my accomplishments, than rich and not happy...but in the end when you're career is cut short by a blood clot and you had no money because you jumped up in competition too early and never collected a big payday, and can't pay your medical bills or get a real job...trust me you'll have regrets.

I'd rather use my brain to secure myself financially (it is a career, it's 2007 not 1937) and do my best against the best before my career was over. Whatever i accomplished win or lose i tried against the best and kept my loved ones secure.

This sums it up perfectly in My opinion.

[Gonzo]

Both.

[elTerrible]

I would like to get money and legassy.

Probably like Leonard, Hagler, etc.

I would not focus only in money, because I would want to be remembered.

I would not focus only in legassy, because I would probably end up poor. And probably with brain damage like Eric Morales.

morales hasnt shown any signs of brain damage that Ive seen

[TBooze]

Money lasts till you die but a Lagacy is forever.

Plenty of greats will tell you legacy does not pay bills.

Also without wanting to totally blow the thread in the direction, but Hitler and Stalin were both arguably in the top five (maybe even higher) of leagcy makers worldwide in the 20th century...