Bottom line: "Business fights" tarnishes legacies

**SeekDaGreat** · 07-27-2016, 06:05 PM

I didn't finish your book but everyone takes business fights and makes business decisions. Fighters deserve to maximize profits at a point in their career and as long ad when they hang em up and they fought everyone they should have there shall be no tarnishing of legacies.

**SeekDaGreat** · 07-27-2016, 06:12 PM

Also Manny didn't lose to Mayweather because he had aged, Manny was sharp in that fight buzzing Mayweather several times. You can argue the fact that Manny landed the cleaner more effective punches. However there is a guideline to scoring fights and Manny failed to best, yes best Mayweather throughout the course of 12 rounds in that department. Age did not change the outcome of that fight and a younger Manny might have walked into more traps and got beat more sound.

**koolkc107** · 07-27-2016, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by SeekDaGreat

Also Manny didn't lose to Mayweather because he had aged, Manny was sharp in that fight buzzing Mayweather several times. You can argue the fact that Manny landed the cleaner more effective punches. However there is a guideline to scoring fights and Manny failed to best, yes best Mayweather throughout the course of 12 rounds in that department. Age did not change the outcome of that fight and a younger Manny might have walked into more traps and got beat more sound.

I agree.

A younger Manny probably gets stopped.

You flash back to 2009, you saw Floyd put JMM on his arse the same way Pac had.

And unlike the Pac of 2015, Manny circa 2009 wouldn't have the common sense JMM had to not keep coming.

But, saying that Floyd made a business decision to not fight for 5 year completely ignores all the things Manny and Arum did to avoid the fight as well.

It is just too simplistic a view on what happened, one that is inherently in conflict with reality.

As to the idea business fights ruin legacies, well...

...that means every fighter ever laced them up has a bad legacy.

**j0zef** · 07-27-2016, 06:27 PM

Here's the problem with one part of what you're saying. The best way to build a legacy is to move up a class and fight a bigger guy. When one fighter moves up a class, that means his opponent is by definition fighting a smaller fighter.

The fan bases on NSB are so ridiculously fickle in their love and hate for the fighters they can't recognize it. They automatically roast both the smaller fighter for "cashing out" and the bigger fighter "for taking easy fights". It doesn't prevent them from singing a completely different tune when they demand that fighter to move up.

I had some time to think about it, and rewatch some old tapes.. as a result, I don't mind the bigger vs. smaller matchup as much anymore. Some of the greatest fights of the 80s and 90s were when guys a division or two apart met. Prior to that, weight classes were even less of a divisor, with fighters like MW Harry Greb building their legacy against Gene Tunney. As a matter of fact, Greb remains one of the definign wins of Tunney's career, even though Gene was a much bigger man.

As long as the size disparity is not huge and the matchup makes sense for both fighters, I say go for it. I wont hold it against a fighter for NOT pursuing the bigger guy, that's their choice. But if they want to do it, best of luck to both of them and may the best man win.

**-PBP-** · 07-27-2016, 06:27 PM

The way a boxing career is supposed to work is you put in work, prove your the best of the best, earn your big opportunity, capitalize on that opportunity, then start making business decisions at the tail end of your career.

Nowadays fighters are making business decisions with **** resumes

Wolfie* · 07-27-2016, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by j0zef

Here's the problem with one part of what you're saying. The best way to build a legacy is to move up a class and fight a bigger guy. When one fighter moves up a class, that means his opponent is by definition fighting a smaller fighter.

The fan bases on NSB are so ridiculously fickle in their love and hate for the fighters they can't recognize it. They automatically roast both the smaller fighter for "cashing out" and the bigger fighter "for taking easy fights". It doesn't prevent them from singing a completely different tune when they demand that fighter to move up.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's not even about moving up in weight at all. It's about fighting the best fights when the fighters themselves are at their peak. The GGG/Canelo was just a example of what I was talking about because it's a realistic fight that can happen. The moral of this thread is if you constantly make "business decisions" and fail to truly fight the best fighters around your division, it will tarnish legacy. You can have any justifications that you want but the reality is they are aren't fighting the best at the best times which hurts them when comparing them to truly great fighters who were actually fighting the best at their best.

**Eff Pandas** · 07-27-2016, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Stark

Either you choose business fights or you are thinking about your legacy which means fighting fights at the right time. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. It's one or the other.

One way or the other lol. Thats bs. This era is polluted with bs between boxers, managers, promoters, networks, alphabet groups & recently & to a lesser degree commissions these days. There are far more things to screw up fights or prevent fights happening in a timely fashion than ever.

If Ali or SRR or fill in the name of your favorite old school fighter were around today people would be talking mad **** about them too I imagine with how the business works today in this promoter era vs how it used to work in there more boxer friendly era. If Manny was around back in the day he'd probably have 200 fights & 30 L's with loads of names on his record & if SRR was around today he'd probably be 51-3 or something like that & have 3 or 4 HOF fighters on his resume if he was lucky. This is an entirely different time we are working in yet for some reason people love to act like this is 1972 or something.

**j0zef** · 07-27-2016, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Stark

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. It's not even about moving up in weight at all. It's about fighting the best fights when the fighters themselves are at their peak. The GGG/Canelo was just a example of what I was talking about because it's a realistic fight that can happen. The moral of this thread is if you constantly make "business decisions" and fail to truly fight the best fighters around your division, it will tarnish legacy. You can have any justifications that you want but the reality is they are aren't fighting the best at the best times which hurts them when comparing them to truly great fighters who were actually fighting the best at their best.

If you're just talking about the timing, I agree.. to an extent. I see nothing wrong with "marinating" a fight for less than a year. They're prizefighters. You want to build up some excitement for the fight.. especially if there are limited options after that opponent.

I was just talking about moving up/down. Sorry didn't mean to try to hijack the thread, just had some thoughts

**Spoon23** · 07-27-2016, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Stark

There seems to be a narrative that die hards love to follow. They act like when a fighter/their fighter chooses a business fight or make a business decision, it's great for their legacy and they praise the fighter once they win. Unfortunately what they fail to realize that it does the complete opposite to their legacy.

Let's put this in proper context. Floyd Mayweather Jr. made a "business decision" to hold off on fighting Pacquiao at the right time. He dragged it out as much as he could. What's the motive? More money? Allowing Manny to age and lose? Unfortunately the motive doesn't matter because what is factual is that win doesn't hold much merit compared to if he fought Pacquiao at his peak, let's say after Manny beat Cotto. A win over that version of Manny is a legendary and signature win.

I'm not attacking any particular fighter, more so the narrative that business decisions or fights are great for legacies. Look what Canelo is doing. First he fought Amir Khan which was a business decision. Did that win do anything for his legacy? Absolutely not. Now he is allowing the GGG fight to "marinate". Again, what is the actual motive? Wanting GGG to age? Allowing GGG to build up his fan base? Who the hell knows but let's say GGG's skills has obviously dwindled down when they fight or let's say GGG loses than if Canelo beats him then that win doesn't hold much merit compared to fighting him now in September.

Bottom line is you cannot have things both ways. Either you choose business fights or you are thinking about your legacy which means fighting fights at the right time. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way. It's one or the other.

We are in the same page brotha' you can't have it both ways.

It's either you choose the path that is difficult, doing it for the glory of boxing for chump change, or you choose the path of less resistance for all the money that comes with it, but it will certainly dent a fighters legacy for fighting that opponent not when he was hot, but when he was cold.

in other words, Cherry picking at the right time to pluck an opponent, is what it is, a calculated risk that will put an asterisk in any fighters legacy.

Bottom line: "Business fights" tarnishes legacies