Lately, we hear a lot of this word being thrown out.
DC talking about it.
Jon Jones.
GSP.
And even guys that are young are already talking about legacy, such as Ortega ot TJ.
I think People misuse this word. A lot.
See, Legacy does nto have to be for any belts.
Legacy fight is one legend fighting another not because they KNOW they can win, but because it would be a war.
For instance, those claiming Legacy for GSP is him fighting a LW.
I disagree.
It would be a lot bigger for his legacy if he had defended against Whittaker (solidifying him as the sole MW champion at the time), or beating Woodley.
because beating Khabib might be great for another belt (he didn't earn), but we all know it would not be such a challenge, given his size advantage.
Same can be said for TJ.
Beating Cejudo might add him to the "champ champ" club. But would it be better than rematching Cruz and cleaning up his division? I don't think so.
Heck, even for DC.
Rematching Jon and getting that W against someone who beat him twice (though with PED accusations thrown in) would be a lot bigger (for his legacy) than beating a pro-wrestler in Lesnar (note: i understand he was an UFC champ, but he left and is not an MMA fighter right now.
For Silva, for instance, he could have fought Jon (while he was at the top). Yes, risky fight, but that was EXACTLY why it would be a huge legacy fight.
I mean, BJ Penn gets a lot more accolades exactly because he fought guys like Machida, or Hughes & GSP. That is what I am talking about!
So I disagree with this noting that people who obviously support those guys attempt to justify why the lesser/easier fighter adds to the legacy (mostly because it is a lot easier fights for their preferred fighters, and they can't bear the thought of that fighter losing). ...
what say you, Sherdog??