Learning to win ugly a true test of greatness?????

Sometimes it's not only their brilliance that makes a sportsmen and teams great but how he/they manages to win UGLY!!!

Coming through on an off day or perhaps not deserving to win but winning..perhaps changing tactics during a fight to beat a guy with your number!!!

Very good gifted fighters like Curry, Tyson... they could never manage to do it!!!!

Like Robbo reversing Turpin in the 2nd fight, Leonard against Hearns, Duran against Leonard...Chavez v Taylor.....True test of any legend is when the cards are against them and by doing or trying anything they turn it around...

Not sure Manny or Floyd out of the younger crop have managed it yet...

Winning ugly can be most beautiful win of them all..

I don't know. Cleverly won ugly in his last fight, is he great?

Are you saying Curry wasn't great?

Would Duran v Leonard count as winning ugly?

I'd agree with you - changing tactics crucial.

Not sure Clev won ugly in a 3 round fight Scott. Other than waving his chin around like a flag - it was plain sailing really.

You mean like Louis knocking out Conn?

Duran probably knew by upsetting Leonard pre-fight he might get him to fight him....

Not much skill in the first fight and Duran won probably the only way he could...

for me it's winning ugly....

oxring wrote:I'd agree with you - changing tactics crucial.

Not sure Clev won ugly in a 3 round fight Scott. Other than waving his chin around like a flag - it was plain sailing really.

Forgot that one even though I was there

The fight before, Muhammedi [sp].

Yes like Louis knocking out Conn....Never said Louis wasn't a legend did I silly billy!!

Although if wobbling around the ring to encourage the guy to finish you is great skill then whatever!!

But he did win ugly..

I'd argue that it was Duran executing the perfect game plan rather than winning ugly.

Anyhoo - agree to an extent with the point and the second incarnation of Ali was probably the best example. Saying that, I'd still consider plenty of fighters, who rarely (if it all) had to win ugly or had the ability to do so, to be great.

Was Benn's victory over McClellan what you'd define as ugly? Not that he was ever pretty but I remember a few elbows and rabbit punches flying in from Benn.

It's a no-brainer; no fighter, no matter how talented or great, is going to have it all their own way every time they step in the ring. To be truly great - in the proper sense of the word - you have to win ugly sometimes, or snatch a top tier victory from the jaws of defeat. That's often what separates the truly great (Louis, Leonard etc) from those, such as Curry and Tyson, who simply aren't. I'd be much more willing to consider Tyson a top five or six Heavyweight had he gritted his teeth and shown the mental toughness to reverse his deficits against Douglas and / or Holyfield.

I think winning big fights in the sign of greatness. If you don't need to win ugly, that's even better.

Don't know how to define Benn-mclellan....I think they had a brawl and Benn won...

Benn was probably better and prevailed.....suppose it showed great heart......

whether it was winning ugly I don't know..he always brawled really!! great as he was at it..

Right about Tyson Chris.......kind of showed his bully tendencies.

Depends what you mean by winning ugly, Duran/Leonard was an ugly yet exciting fight to watch but was the precise manner in which Duran needed to fight to win or do you merely mean winning when not at your best?

It's probably too much an American term you don't get my meaning....

Basically winning when you shouldn't...

Isn't winning when you should and when you've performed well more impressive?

The likes of Hopkins are masters of this. Im not sure if you mean the kind of cliche in football of not playing well but winning away as the sign of a champion but certainly in boxing there are sublties as being able to neutralise you opponents strengths and take the fight away from him. Then theres also the time when all else fails and you just have to dig deep to get through the fight or throw everything and the kitchen sink at it in order to pull it out of the bag.

I'd say that learning to win in the face of 'ugliness' is a better indication of greatness.

Moore against Durelle cemented his legacy beyond any question

Definitely not a great, but Skelton's win over Danny Williams was an interesting exercise in winning ugly. Always a banger, always in your face, but suddenly tries boxing against a ridiculously overweight Williams. I laughed out loud all night.

Rolling everybody over Scotty doesn't take you to the limit....Sure it makes you great but triumph in the face of adversity is the stuff with what legends are made..When your true nature is exposed!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rolling everybody over Scotty doesn't take you to the limit....Sure it makes you great but triumph in the face of adversity is the stuff with what legends are made..When your true nature is exposed!

Would this then tend to suggest that whilst Floyd Mayweather Jr is a great fighter, his lack of tough fights would preclude him from genuine greatness?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Rolling everybody over Scotty doesn't take you to the limit....Sure it makes you great but triumph in the face of adversity is the stuff with what legends are made..When your true nature is exposed!

You can find loads of examples of average fighters winning ugly, but how many of beating greats easily?

I see what you're saying, maybe I agree if you beat someone who stylistically isn't right for you, or past your best.

It's only when great fighters have to show real resolve when we see how truly great they are...

His defeats showed a lot about Tyson..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's only when great fighters have to show real resolve when we see how truly great they are...

His defeats showed a lot about Tyson..

To a point, yes, but if a guy is simply SO good he makes everyone else look bad...that shouldn't be held against him.

No of course not but turning back the odds a la Robinson-Fullmer 2 is something to be hold.....

It adds to the legacy..and shows a warrior's true spirit.

But the fact a fighter doesn't encounter such situations shouldn't necessarily mark him down.

Heart, ability to adapt and guts are all criteria though.

Harrison's epic win over Sprott I hope he doesn't read this or we will get the dream is alive speech!!

[quote
Not much skill in the first fight and Duran won probably the only way he could...

Not much skill!? ! Truss mate , your losing it. There may not have been much jabbing and moving, but there was some absolutely top quality infighting, great defence skills in terms of slipping & blocking whilst relentlessly pressuring your opponent. It may not have been your cup of tea, but to claim not much skill is just wrong- I'm almost tempted to write fact in capital letters to underline how much I believe it.