Sven Ottke: a great fighter

J · Post by J » 29 Mar 2004, 10:08

think part of it is the desire to see ottke beaten Bennie.
especially aftet the reid debacle and the frustration at JC never meeting ottke and at the average title contenders JC has been going in with at times.
I do take your point tho' you dont make that many title defences if you are crap. He just aint a crowd pleaser outside Germany. Just personalyl dpont think he wa sa great champ myself. (but reckon you were looking for a bit of reaction with that pal haha)

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 29 Mar 2004, 10:19

bennie wrote:I've been getting slaughtered in this debate, and knew I would. But I'm surprised at the number of people who feel Calzaghe would have easily beaten Ottke. Yes, in Wales he would. But in Germany! Not in a million years.

yes mr tillerman would be there so saved the day and his 3 best friends

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 29 Mar 2004, 10:35

sorting my tapes out and i notice i have too many ottke fights in my collection

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 29 Mar 2004, 11:16

Bennie I am surprised at you.....has someone used your username and password to log in.

Jones may not have done things the hardest way possible, but he's a great fighter. He would not have beaten every light heavyweight ever, but nobody would have walked through him, nobody, he has a great chin, and simply doesn't ever get hit enough for anyone to crush him at that weight.

Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Foster, good picks to beat him, but I would have given Moore, not Foster the best chance to stop him.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 29 Mar 2004, 11:20

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Bennie I am surprised at you.....has someone used your username and password to log in.

Jones may not have done things the hardest way possible, but he's a great fighter. He would not have beaten every light heavyweight ever, but nobody would have walked through him, nobody, he has a great chin, and simply doesn't ever get hit enough for anyone to crush him at that weight.

Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Foster, good picks to beat him, but I would have given Moore, not Foster the best chance to stop him.

Forget Jones. I was just being belligerent.

Bard of Boxrec · Post by **Bard of Boxrec** » 29 Mar 2004, 16:43

The Jones argument is ridiculous because when you strip it down to the fundamentals, talking about TALENT, Jones is a real fighter, and to merely mention Ottke in the same sentence is a total and utter insult.

I'll say it again: Imagine Ottke had defended maybe 10 times in another country, or even had a non title fight somewhere other than Germany, he'd have 5 or 6 losses and retire comparable to a Charles Brewer, who quite obviously beat him anyway. I have to admit, I only recently saw the fight but was determined to stay unbiased and can say that brewer was disgracefully robbed.

Sven Ottke's real record: say 27-5. minimal KOs. no real wins. he may or may not have got another crack at a title after losing the IBF. say he did, in america, against Antwun Echols. Close fight, but echols wins by a round, american judging favouring echols' aggresiveness. say he fought mundine rematch in Australia. Mundine stomps him. Say he takes one in England against Reid. Reid wins, probably by stoppage, he doesn't have a biased referee to contend with, you see. Ref lets Reid fight, gets a legit knockdown, stops Ottke. Say Ottke takes on bernard Hopkins or Roy Jones. We need not say anything about that one...

Say he also loses a couple on his travels against not particularly great opposition, which is entirely plausible when ottke doesn't have his hoards of moronic fans, biased judges and loving referee to take care of him. Watch his primitive skills and lack of talent shine through against similar losers, except Ottke isn't at home now, the crowd are not watching through rose tinted spectacles and a real crowd are seeing very much a fighter who is not real in the slightest. ottke is on the undercard, loses, everyone forgets about him. He could have ended up a Henry Porras, a Tocker Pudwill.

Does anyone wish to argue that this is not plausible, if Ottke's career had gone slightly differently, if he had balls to take real fights where real fighting takes place.

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 29 Mar 2004, 17:37

The Jones argument is ridiculous because when you strip it down to the fundamentals, talking about TALENT, Jones is a real fighter, and to merely mention Ottke in the same sentence is a total and utter insult.

Yes.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 29 Mar 2004, 19:12

Southpaw Stylist wrote:
The Jones argument is ridiculous because when you strip it down to the fundamentals, talking about TALENT, Jones is a real fighter, and to merely mention Ottke in the same sentence is a total and utter insult.
Yes.

I find it just as insulting when people compare him to the greats of yesteryear. The great Roy Jones, eh. In today's pick and choose boxing world, yeah he's great. He's thrived. He chose to avoid his natural rival Dariusz Michalczewski, but made up for it by fighting for a version of the heavyweight title against a man who represented Puerto Rico in the world amateur championships - at light-heavyweight! The awesome John Ruiz.
The Quiet Man became a target for Jones after taking part in the worst heavyweight title fight of all time against Kirk Johnson. But then, that's how Jones has worked throughout his career. If the guy sucks, he gets a chance. Antonio Tarver sucked against Montell Griffin, and got a payday, too.
So what about the great fighters he did fight! Bernard Hopkins and James Toney of course. Let's not kid ourselves here. Roy Jones only fought them because he had to. They were title fights. Jones was a challenger; a challenger who ran his way to the titles and continued running from the best available contenders.
And who did he beat for the vacant WBC light-heavyweight title? The 40-year-old Bodysnatcher.
Clearly, the mantle of great fighter today don't mean much. The best fighters today avoid each other. Jones has exploited that to the full. Christ, Sven Ottke fought better men than Jones has!

Matchfixer · Post by **Matchfixer** » 29 Mar 2004, 19:57

bennie wrote: Sven Ottke fought better men than Jones has!

When you have the win before the match starts it doesn't count for anything.

Muhammed Ali would not have "beaten" Ottke even if they were fighting at their usual weights.

Sweet P · Post by **Sweet P** » 30 Mar 2004, 04:47

J wrote:Mundine is twice as quick as Calzaghe.

you sure?
So you reckon Mundine would beat Calzaghe thats interesting one thing is for sure Ottke ko'd him and JC hits much harder wouldnt see it going 6 myself.

For my take I dont think Ottke was a great and I do think that he did run from Calzaghe in the latter part of his career.
He did lose to Reid that was just a total disgrace, and his style was not exactly crowd pleasing for the neutral. BUT in his defence I dont think JC has done himself any favours, as he seemed to be content if beating Ottke cast offs for the last 2 years. A rather worrying trend.
So there defintely is some credence in the fact that Ottke mixed it with better opponents as JC seemed to want to have a look at them courtesy of Sven first certianly in 2002/3 - reads Brewer / Pudwill and Mitchell.
With a limted but hard Jiminez thrown in, not particualry awe-inspiring.[/quote]
All i said is Mundine is twice as quick i didn't say he would beat Calzaghe. Hand speed and foot speed are only one part to boxing u also need a good chin and heart. If anyone thinks that Calzaghes hand and foot speed is as good as Mundines then they haven't seen Mundine fight.

J · Post by J » 30 Mar 2004, 07:58

sorry it was a question..not an attack....should have worded it better as in do you think Mundine.....etc apologies for confusion.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 30 Mar 2004, 12:38

bennie wrote:I was just being belligerent.

Am I the only to whom it was obvious that bennie was either blatantly trolling or had gotten into a bad batch of his grandpappy's elderberry wine?

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 11 Apr 2004, 04:55

bennie wrote:Most world title defences ever made per reign:

Joe Louis: 25
Abe Attell: 22
Ricardo Lopez: 21
Sven Ottke: 21
Larry Holmes: 20

wrong Dariusz Michalczewski made 22 defense of his WBO light heavyweight belt

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 11 Apr 2004, 06:16

Sven Ottke last fight should have been a rematch with Robin Reid.

jeej · Post by **jeej** » 11 Apr 2004, 18:40

Sure would have been interesting to see Ottke fight a class opponent outside of Germany. Robin Reid should have beaten Ottke and there are a fair few boxers at that weight better than Reid about.

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 12 Apr 2004, 12:01

REAL_DEAL wrote:
bennie wrote:Most world title defences ever made per reign:

Joe Louis: 25
Abe Attell: 22
Ricardo Lopez: 21
Sven Ottke: 21
Larry Holmes: 20
wrong Dariusz Michalczewski made 22 defense of his WBO light heavyweight belt

Since when is the WBOgus belt a "world title?" At least Ottke was defending something approaching a real belt, i.e. one which was actually respected by the top contenders. I rank the WBO strap about the same as the NABF, except that the WBO isn't strictly speaking a regional title (although in practice it has more often than not been effectively a European analog of the NABF title).

Warren, like his German Herzbruder Kohl, simply treats the WBO title as his personal fief, because he knows that as long as he keeps feeding a steady diet of sanctioning fees to the WBO, his fighters who hold their belt will never have to face anything approaching a worthy mandatory challenger. Remember, Sanders and Brewster were also considered joke challengers by Kohl for Vlad's WBO title, they just forget to play their roles properly come fight time.

Now this is not necessarily different than what Don King regularly does with the big-name sanctioning bodies, but since top fighters actually covet those belts, even given some crookery the general level of competition will be greater. OK, so maybe Byrd/Oquendo was a joke - but no way in hell will Byrd get away with facing 20-odd stiffs and castoffs of other guys in a row, like Michalczewski did. The ONLY time DM faced a top true light-heavy who'd not already been beaten down by RJJ was Virgil Hill, and those were the only real world title belts he ever held. Did he defend them even once? No, he and his promoter basically gave them up without much fuss so Dariusz could keep his precious WBO belt. Did the sue the IBF for demanding that DM defend that title within some ridiculously short time span? (A lawsuit they surely would've won.) No. Did they keep the WBA belt, since the WBA doesn't allow its holders to also hold the WBO title? No.

Now I don't consider Ottke any tremedously great shakes, either - very protected, rarely dominated anyone. But at least in his prime he did beat some top guys at 168 fair and square. More than Joe can say.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 12 Apr 2004, 12:08

Please the WBO is a much better belt than the WBA, IBF

The IBF was caught on video tape by the FBI taking bribes from promoters to rank fighters - how sick

The WBA thinks its funny to have 2 WBA champs in some divisons - how sick

Don king bought lewis IBF BELT of him for a million dollars and a car - how sick

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 12 Apr 2004, 12:15

REAL_DEAL wrote:Please the WBO is a much better belt than the WBA, IBF

No - all the sanctioning bodies are crooked, so given that, the main thing differentiating the titles is how they are perceived by the fighters themselves. In other words, it's the fighters who make the belts. And on that score the WBO title is clearly second-rate. Sounds like you've been listening to too much "genuine world title" propaganda from the like of Warren and Kohl.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 12 Apr 2004, 12:16

most people only rate the other belts cause they have been around longer