What do you think is the better win? Something like RJJ against Hopkins where after Hopkins has gone on to do great things as a fighter. Same with Dawson-Adamek or Do you think its better to totally ruin a fighter so there never the same again? Fights such as Hopkins vs Trinidad Calzaghe vs Lacy
Legacy-wise the first option is obviously the best. If you ruin someone young like Lacy they'll just say he wasn't any good to begin with and the win quickly becomes meaningless. If you ruin a proven fighter, well, usually "he became old overnight." I wouldn't say Hopkins-Trinidad was that kind of a fight though. Trinidad-Vargas would be a better example.
fighters being "ruined" has always been exagerrated if Lacy was ruined it was from his shoulder injury, not the Calzaghe loss. Hopkins never ruined Tito as a fighter. Tito just went too high in weight which didn't mesh well with his style.
For a fighter's legacy it is definitely the first option. If a fighter goes on to do great things, it appreciably raises the stock of the fighter who beat him. Salvador Sanchez v Azumah Nelson is the classic example. By contrast, if a guy never does anything afterwards, there is a tendency for people to rewrite history and claim he was never any good to start with (Calzaghe-Lacy being the classic example).
Your kidding right? hat was the most comprehensive fight I ever seen. lacy is finished as a fighter, and it was from round 1 against Calzaghe. he absolutely humiliated him, no excuses.
Calslappy didn't **** up Lacy's shoulder that happened in a different fight, his shoulder injury finished him though losing to Slappy didn't help any.
