If you are the boxer, would you box for legacy or money?

They really don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can do both. Many big money fights are legacy building fights and viceversa. Guys can also mix in some big legacy fights with some big money fights if the 2 ideas cannot be reconciled in 1 fight.

 

Too many other what ifs?

Am I still trying to be able to earn top dollar, or am I Winky Wright and cant earn a dime no matter who I beat.

 

Both, because they go together. You have to be a fraud to get paid big money for nothing.

As for the qs, Ill take the money because Im poor

Floyd is correct legacy doesnt pay the bills.

 

Great boxers fight for "Legacy" from the ages of around 10 years old all the way up to 20+ years and then turn pro ONLY...FOR....THE....MONEY =) :good


In all honesty, fighting for legacy in the pro game should logically give you all the money you'd ever need. Floyd Mayweather didn't come into the game picking and choosing who he wanted to fight. He wanted to fight everyone and clean house. When he discovered that his opponents and their promoters were going to start dancing around him for financial reasons, than Floyd opted to use that same treatment on everyone else. All boxers are going to come pro looking for money and a better life. But to get started in the pro game, you first have to come in with that legacy mentality. Once you become a prizefighter the legacy is basically optional. (especially the way boxing is structured now with so many paper belts and no lineal champs)

:huh If the poll had a "both" option I'd choose that one

 

Winky Wright 'Elite' today?:think

It's not a hard question, I have no hidden agenda.
Elite has various definitions. Let's say for discussion sake you've accumulated great wealth, worth 20mil+, Top 3 in the world, have 5-6 good fights left in you.

Do you go for the cash or legacy?

 

Yea I jumped over that. I am pre occupied.

Money. I wouldn't get into boxing for the legacy. Unless I could get some money.

 

I say money now, but I'm a very insecure person, and I'd probably always feel the need to prove myself, so...I don't know.

 

Most fighters when they reach a certain level of success/popularity look for other big fights against bigger names for big money.

Logically you can say "once you have the money you can then fight for legacy" but more often than not you'll see rich fighters look for the biggest fights possible. Usually it'll be against other top guys at the time since that'll create more money, which of course helps your all-time standing as well, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes badly faded fighters can still create the biggest paydays.

The high-risk/low-reward fighters, whom a win over would impress the hardcore fans and help their legacies among historians, still often don't find the richest fighters knocking at their doors.

 

Would I Rather go 50-0 win a championship or two but not make any money, or would I rather go 0-50 but make a lot of money in the process. I'd like to go 50-0 with the championships and have the money. However if you put a gun to my head and made me chose one or the other. I'd take the money.

 

Both.

 

I guess that's why I respect GPB so much he achieved both.

 

Money, "legacy don't pay bills" (ala FMJ)

 

I would not be greedy if I made good money. Invest in my money and would not have to cheat like Void.

 

Legacy, i already got tons of coin.

 

Well if you think about it, in this day in time, if your performing at a level where you even have a "legacy" the money will come. All you need is a personality to accompany your skill. Cash follows. Period. However, some people can talk themselves into cash. See P. Malignaggi... I doubt people will be clamoring about his legacy when he retires. Pacquiao is fighting for legacy, and due to his style cash followed. Not too much personality. You see my point... Anyways, for me I would obviously fight for legacy. Legacy is history, forever, as long as man-kind exists in a civilized fashion. Cash, once you die or spend it, is gone.