Yes & in my opinion rightly so. It will inevitably damage their legacy if they don't take on dangerous opposition at all, however at the end of the day everytime they get in the ring they risk their health & their futures with their loved ones to get in the ring. They deserve to maximise the profits.
Take Joe Calzaghe, he did spend too much of his career fighting in Wales against no-hopers. However, he did show with Kessler & Hopkins he was willing to take on tough opposition. As disappointed as I was that he chose to fight RJJ instead of Pavlik, he maximised the money. Although his choices will undoubtedly affect his legacy, his grandchildren will have a grandad who can speak clearly & doesn't have pugilistic dementia.
As fight fans, we demand more of these fighters than ANY of us would be willing to give. In The Ring recently, they said we want them to fight the bigger man, the faster man, the vicious puncher, all so we know their limits. The most obvious was the Nate Campbell issue recently. Doctor's reports confirmed that if he had fought on, he would have very likely been blind in that eye for the rest of his life. Yet on here, there were many saying he should've carried on, that he showed a lack of heart.
To be honest, this just strikes at my biggest peeve with boxing fans (yes more than reckless fanboys) & that is this keyboard Gatti mentality, often by people who've never put on some gloves.


Thanks:
Likes:
Dislikes: 

Reply With Quote
Bookmarks