Officially it is. It's like a default win imo. The fight has to stop and someone has to be the winner.
If the fighter who was stopped was leading on the scorecards, then its a controversial victory, and will always be rememberred like that in history. If the fighter who was stopped was badly losing the fight, then of course its a legitimate victory!
Not without a rematch. If the fighter can win the rematch then both fights are legitimate wins..........
If the cut was caused by a punch and it's not a quick stoppage, such as Khan/McCloskey, then absolutely. When the cut isn't severe or it was wrongly called as being caused by a punch, then there is reason to argue. However, if a stoppage is forced because one fighter has bad cuts or swelling, then it's the right decision and should not, in any case, be argued with.
Legit win but it doesnt prove anything on who is the better fighter. Cuts are random events, its not skillfull to cause a cut. Winning by a cut is like winning a game of chance. Like Lewis beating Vitali legit, but at the same time he did not prove he was the better fighter.
Yes, Cuts are caused by getting hit, sometimes by head buts but in those casses the fight is ruled a No Contest or Draw.
even tho boxer a leads on the cards but boxer b cuts boxer a on legit cuts, a tko win by boxer b is still a legit win.
Interesting. Ive never considered "cut" TKOs to be legitimate wins personally, but I see I am in the minority on this