If you were a boxer.. how would you rather your career go...

:good your absolutely right.

it is Top level, your a Rich man, and because your one of the best you've come out unscathed, and ALL the people know your one of thee Best and even the champions, IF you never got near them, know it too.

Proud & Happy days.

 

you shouldn't give a **** what these critics remember you by as most have never boxed. just achieve all you can n make the money.

 

The chances of coming out unscathed if you fight ALL the 'best' and 'toughest' guys is quite low.
More than half the guys we revere on this site for doing just that ended up punch drunk or blind or impaired in some way.
Plus you're willing to take a pay cut to prove your point ??

Boxing is a serious business. It's not a game.

 

it's a hypothetical question, not flipping fact, and most of us are not fighters...

so I repeat, from a Sporting question & Sporting answer, I still say I'd like to fight the best proving I am the best...

some fighters actually did this and had unquestionable careers and as TOP men finished relatively unscathed - NOT ever fighter ended up punchy far from it.

and again it's a make believe scenario NOT real for most us here.

 

Of course it's hypothetical. But we're still supposed to come up with the most honest or accurate answer.
The thread title "If you were a boxer ..."

In all honesty, IF i was a top level boxer I'd rather make more money and being known as the best in my time during my time but avoid some of the toughest fights and be open to having holes picked in my resume in the ensuing years, rather than get all the accolades years later yet having taken far more risks with my health and being paid less for doing so.

I would advise everyone else to take the same approach too. :good

 

If you don't choose #1 there is something wrong with you. What happens after you are gone is less important than your life while you live. Most people who work for a living do so for the money. It's only after their basic economic and physical needs are met that they seek fame and respect.

 

As a fan I care about what a boxer did in his career with regards to atg standing.

If I was a boxer I'd care about money. The better you are the more money you make usually. But believe me I'd cherry pick my arse off if there was a way to make millions and return unscathed. Who wouldn't? As a fan I demand more but I'm man enough to admit I would take the low risk high reward route every single time.

Those boxers that do favour legacy usually end up sat atop the atg rankings but rarely live long enough to appreciate it. To us as fans it's a sport, a passion, a historical beauty. To those as professionals it's a job.

 

Exactly, it's a small time window; make as much money and get out.

 

The first. If I'm going to decdacate my life to being a top notch athlete. I'd like to get paid for it. Espicialy if I'm in a sport where someone is trying to take my head off. I'm going to assume that as time goes by there are going to be better boxers, going down in the rankings would not surprise me. I'd still be top 70 anyways. That's hall of fame status. It's not like I'm going to be forgoten. I'd still have my fame which should keep me in demand for things like doing comeantary and acting roles. If I was smart I'd still have my money long after my fighting days were over.

I'm trying to think of two comparsions for each role. Choice 1. is hard to come by. Choice 2. Charley Burley comes to mind. Choice 1. I think Jack Dempsy might be the best choice. I don't know what kind of post boxing life Burley had, but Dempsy seemed to be very sescfull after boxing.

 

obviously number one. Revisionism can go in someone's favor and then go back against them probably.

 

A pointless question. Most people may act differently when they see a boatload of money lol

 

I gotta go with option 2. I may be in the minority, but even in my own professional pursuits, I consider fulfillment of purpose and legacy far superior in precedence to financial incentives; to such ends that beyond a very bare minimum amount needed to sustain my wife and I, and my and her parents should they become infirm, I am really quite indifferent to how much I rake in. I speak with the luxuries of being young, having no one else beyond those mentioned to consider, and having had a postgraduate education, though, the latter being inseparable in terms of how I view and process things, as well as that, if at least in the course of boxing history when it comes to many past greats, I consider myself impervious to many of the economic perils our beloved athletes face such as friends hassling me to invest in their "business interests" and legal troubles.

All the same, I feel money is fleeting, useless beyond necessity, and temporary. Fighting with and for a higher purpose, in my eyes, is more fulfilling in terms of the journey and in hindsight of what I have or have not accomplished.

 

This is true, too.