Lagacy or Money

What do boxers fight for? I'm mainly referirng to the elite boxers. Trussy's thread about Naz got me thinking about his legacy. But he made his money and retired. Sad for fans but credit to Khan for leaving with all his faculties intact.

Larry Holmes once said that a boxer who claims to be fighting for the fans, legacy and glory is a liar otherwise they would have remained amateurs. How much of that is true.

We often hear the likes of Paq and PBF saying they want to give the fight the fans want and the type of fights they also want. I call it BS because elite fighters hardly enter a fight unless their personal economics are sorted out first.

Thoughts?

Money first and if possible legacy thereafter........

Always want to feed your family.....It's a business first and foremost!!

Boxers are all made different some or born competitors like Holyfield, Hatton and the like.....others are more interested in using Boxing as a means to an end...Mike spinks.....

Some are thick and some are smart.....recognising potential avenues and potential roadblocks..."Man needs to know his limitations etc"

Some have more confidence in their ability and want to fulfil what they presume to be their own high potential!!! Others will take the easy option...


End of the day in Boxing you have a smaller window than most sports so Money everytime..................then think about legacy if poss!!

Very true. But we hear all too often about fighters damaging their legacies etc. Holmes being a prime example after being laid down by Tyson. He said he'd pose like that again if paid another $3m.

It was a throwaway comment when a cheeky journalist chucked a picture of him lying on his back against Tyson on his desk in his office...

Or are we supposed to take everything literally..

I've heard him say similar before.

But all too often we here boxers talk about their legacy whilst really mean "pay me the money I want". Dont get me wrong, nothing wrong with that. But some often criticise a boxer for being greedy and questioning thei rlegacy.

Holmes legacy is secure Mate.and If it was just money he wouldn't of stumbled up twice after being flattened by Mike..

Remember him puking after 12 hard rounds with Holy???..

Think you a using a poor example...............

Nah I'm sure Holmes later admitted he stayed down against Tyson when he realised he wasn't going to win and just decided to take the paycheck. Afterall, he'd already lost to Spinks and his legacy was secure but he admitted as much that it was for the money.

Despite being a great theres' a lot to blame Holmes for in terms of the deterioration of boxing. The biggest mercenary of the heavyweight division bar none and the man who lit the touchpaper for the cancerous spread of "world titles" that are ruining boxing now.

Holmes is only one example. Calzaghe is an obvious one. Naz another. RJJ anyone? People forget how good he was and focus on his recent shambles and claiming he couldn't take a punch at his peak.

"Calzaghe", "Naz"!

The WBO was long in existence before these two milked it. RJJ cashed in on some daft belts like the WBF but my point was the IBF - an organisation formed by a few disgruntled emploees of the WBC (I think) was a fledgling organisation that paid Holmes handsomely to hold their belt. This led the way for other organisations like the WBo to form and pormote their own champs as well.

Just the relatively new saying that the fighter makes the belt not the other way around came largely from Larry Holmes and the IBF.

Yep. Holmes made no bones about the fact that he fought primarliy for money. Who can blame him? Boxing is an individual sport in which the boxers themselves should be handsomely rewarded for their risks. I wouldn't point the finger at him for the state of boxing. After all we had the WBA/C and up until recently Britain only recognised the WBA/C. I believe it was Sibsom (Greb slayer) who fought Tate for the IBF title and was recognised by the bbbc.

Its about the money and if boxers can make as much as possible, all power to them.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, my view is if as a fighter you take the fights the fans want to see money is a by-product of doing that, get a bit bored of fans and fighters talking about business and money, this is a sport not an episode of the Apprentice.

Money more than legacy, but as rowley says they arent neccessarily mutually exclusive. In reent times I would highlight the likes of Hopkins an de la Hoya as examples of this. De la Hoyas popularity meant he could have made huge money fighting much less risky opponents but he generally went after the biggest names and toughest fights. Hopkins has probably earned less than his standing might have warranted but I cant imagine hes still fighting now exclusively for the money.

rowley wrote:I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, my view is if as a fighter you take the fights the fans want to see money is a by-product of doing that, get a bit bored of fans and fighters talking about business and money, this is a sport not an episode of the Apprentice.

here here.

Holmes was waved off as soon as he the deck for the third time...

Stop sullying a legend...

rowley wrote:I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, my view is if as a fighter you take the fights the fans want to see money is a by-product of doing that, get a bit bored of fans and fighters talking about business and money, this is a sport not an episode of the Apprentice.

For the boxers it is a business. But generally agree with your point.