Who tainted their legacy the worst

One of those was exposed as a roider, I'd say him first, by far.

HastyShadyAmericanshorthair-size_restricted.gif
 
EVIL WAR GOD said:
BJ got KOed by some fat drunk guy in a street fight. I’d say him.
Click to expand...
To be fair to BJ, was he really fighting the guy? Only footage I've ever seen is what is in this gif and it kinda looks like fat boi took the first swings and BJ wasn't really ready. Granted it looks like BJ egging him on probably by saying "Hit me, Hit me", but that isn't really a fight as BJ wasn't in any fighting position.
 
BJ and it's not even close. Chuck's only super bad loss where he looked awful was the third Tito fight. Penn literally went out setting a record for most losses in a row and being beaten by a fat drunk guy.
 
most recently Khabib, with his extremist statements and support for beaheadings and terrorist orgs.
 
Penn, but only because he lost his motivation. Otherwise, he would still be champ.
 
I think we have to separate what are losses due to just competing while still being a top fighter and losses due to just fighting beyond prime.

Anderson has losses but if we're talking about fights where he should have stopped fighting it's not that bad, some losses were still when he was competing at a high level.

People look at Anderson and say he's 1-7 since losing the belt. But let's consider that the two losses to Weidman and the loss Bisping are losses that just come with the territory of being a top competitor. We can't go back and say Anderson should not have been fighting at the time. He was still a relevant and top fighter. The loss to Cormier was at LW and on 3 days notice, you can't really hold that against him.

I think the fights in question that could taint his legacy is his last three vs Izzy, Cannoneir and Hall. Those are fights where he was visibly not the same Anderson.

I think BJ fought much beyond the time he should have. I think the cut to 145 was not necessary and I don't think taking the fights vs Rory and Diaz were either.

Chucks wasn't that bad, he took three KOs at the end and called it quits. He was champ and in his prime in 2007, he quite 3 years later. The Tito fight was dumb, cash grab but no one takes that seriously.

I think BJ fought way too late. But I don't think that either legacies were really tainted cause their reigns are set in stone.
 
BEATDOWNS said:
Anderson
Chuck
or
BJ?
Click to expand...

Chucks was the worst decline.
BJs was gradual and over many years.

Chuck's was sudden and violent and he went from the top guy in the sport to getting ktfo multiple times in brutal fashion.
Chuck also got more noticeable cte.

Case in point, if they were to fight now BJ would ko him every time.
 
Anderson's late career only adds to his legacy, going the distance against DC and Izzy when he's years past his prime is impressive as hell.
 
I'd say BJ by a mile, considering that he isn't even that old. He was 31 last time he won a fight and that was against an over the hill Matt Hughes, Chuck was 38 and Anderson 42 (38 if you don't want to count the Brunson fight).
 
only way to taint a legacy is to lose and lose badly( in a fight)
 
silva by far--if gsp hadnt come back to beat bisping id have his legacy tainted but bravo gsp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,038
Messages
55,463,264
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top