oh come on Bunce.

[stujones]

Tate basically cut & stopped Ottke. Ottke got away with some sort of technical decision, no contest - whatever he kpet the title and had a big rematch. Tate was beaten by Julian Jackson in about '93. He was well past it when Ottke fought him.

Ottke I doubt would have been utterly dominant vs Siaca, Andrade, Beyer, Sartison...With Ottke, every decent foe was peck and poke, life and death. Kessler can hold the middle of the ring and break apart a good opponent's face.

I think super middle's going to be excellent. Will be very hard to get the WBO and IBF champs in the mix as they wil want to dominate at home (Germany, Canada). Pavlik, Taylor, Abraham will need super middle belts sooner or later, Showtime seem pretty big on Dirrell, Ward is progressing nicely, Jacobs looking promising. I think things always seem to happen, when the Yanks want the fights and the money's there.

Okay so Ottke got a TD on a fight he was clearly winning, and then ruled out the controvesy by giving Tate a rematch and winning widely on points.... whats the problem here. Reid/Hopkins rematch anyone?

So you go on opponents Ottke never faced and say "he would have had problems", but then their actual common opponent he stopped..... Ottke wasn't pretty but was effective and was difficult to beat. Styles for me is the lesser point of the arguement. I would have liked to have seen Joe vs Ottke cause it would have been a interesting and hard fight to pick - as Starie and Mitchell testified... Reid didn't mind.

Kessler does look in a different class to Ottke. If Ottke faced a good fighter, he only just beat them or had to get some kind of help. Reid, Larsen, Branco, Brewer, Brewer, Mitchell, Tate 1 - all very close or some kind of mass crisis for Sven. The guy couldn't even stop Pudwill and Lloyd Bryan. Ottke was a good boxer but I don't see him as bein quite in Kessler's league.

I'll ask again, would you rather Joe had a win over Ottke, or over Kessler, a man who unified 2 belts without a pinch of controversy.

Ottke - a man who unified two belts and had 20 defences over 8 years. Sorry, but I would. Not saying Kessler might do better, but at the moment its a might.

[stujones]

Stu - you are becoming an opposite version of Max Molenyuex!!!!

Whilst there is a lot of merit in what you say you reveal your true self by arguing that JC v Kessler was a draw!!

feck me!! it was not even close

We can argue until the cows come home but the facts speak for themselves:

Kessler
Hopkins
Lacy
Reid
Eubank
Brewer
Mitchell
Woodhall

This is like a who's who of 168-175lbers in the last 10 years and Joe has beaten them all

Ottke - why the assumption that it is Joe's fault the fight never took place, although if it did Joe wins very easily

Honestly Stu whilst you argue very well some of your views are very distorted

Kessler fight a draw!! - dear me, back to the drawing board me thinks

Kevin

As David Payne said - its not a whose who... I'm sorry love him or loathe him but if you are talking about the last 10 years of the Super Middleweight devision then sorry, but a guy with 20 defences, undefeated over eight years, often beating the "great" wins of Joe before Calzaghe did, then sorry he must be considered a huge part of the history.

Similarly, a guy who reigned 3 times over 6 years - beating Woodhall, Lucas and a few other meaningful names - sorry he is a part also.

I'm not "bigging up" Sven.... Sven's status among the majority of the fight fans is just about right - some who think a Joe victory was "obvious" is underating him... Joe lost rounds to Bika, Woodhall, Brewer (who lost to Sven twice) but it seems like the minority (thankfully) think Calzaghe would have shut out Ottke. Remember, Mitchell and Starie both said they wouldn't liked to be pressed on saying who would win between Joe and Sven. Mitchell straight after fighting Joe, Starie straight after fighting Sven.... Rob Reid thought Joe would wipe the floor with him, but then Sven was in decline then.

However, the arguement is not about whether Sven is a "legend", one of the greats of his generation or Hall of Fame bound... he is not, and if a German stated he was - I'd be first to reply saying he is bonkers. Its not an arguement of who is better between Joe or Sven.... Joe has clearly surpassed Sven now, but was he ahead of Sven when Ottke retired? Would Ali go down as an all time great if he never fought Frazier?

Whose "fault" it was for me is neither here nor there, fact is - it didn't happen... Could Joe had beaten Sven in Germany - yes, was it worth the risk - well if you want to be a great then yes... if not find another way. Not wait for him to retire and pick off belts from more unproven champions.

Had Roy not done the Heavyweight thing, then I think his standing would have been alot more dimished - cause he avoided his "natural" rival at Super Middle (Collins) and his natural rival at Light Heavy (Michaelswecki). Like Joe, he never cleaned up the devision but unlike Joe he achieved greatness by picking up belts in new weights against solid opposition.

As for the Kessler fight not being close - I'm in a HUGE minority for scoring it a draw, but I know lots who scored it for Calzaghe by 1 or 2 and actually I know 5 fight fans who went to Vegas and the MS and are adamant the Kessler fight was closer than the Hopkins one.

[DavidPayne]

Claiming Collins was Jones' natural rival is a stretch too IMO.

[stujones]

Claiming Collins was Jones' natural rival is a stretch too IMO.

Collins had proven himself Britains best at Super Middle (at that time), Jones proved himself the American best... I think for a time (brief time) Collins was considered a threat.

Jones' longest spell was as a Light Heavy, and Michaelswecki was his biggest loss. But neither IMO, can be as argued as much as the Sven/Joe rivarly. The practically had identical resumes in terms of quality of opponent.

[Datsue]

[thread derailment]

How can you criticise Calzaghe's opponents yet push forward Lopez? Can you even remember one guy Lopez fought? For that matter, can you name (without looking it up) anyone Jimmy Wilde fought?

Rosendo Alvarez, for Lopez. Rattanapol Sorvorapin. Zolani Petolo. Melchor Cob Castro. Saman Sorjaturong (who went on to be a unified champion for about five years a division or two up). So nyaaaah!

But then, I was always a fan. Oh, & Wilde beat Young Zulu Kid, amongst others.

[/thread derailment]

Anyway: personally, Calzaghe's style has always annoyed me & his laugh-a-minute public persona isn't exactly magnetic. But to claim Ottke as some kind of boxing god & dismiss Calzaghe is at best misguided & worst disingenuous. Joe has achieved a lot, & we'll miss him when he's gone & we've got no-one holding a title. The worst you could say about them is that they are on a par with each other, with Joe getting extra kudos for beating the better guys (in the end, like).

[Captain Hook]

Claiming Collins was Jones' natural rival is a stretch too IMO.

Collins had proven himself Britains best at Super Middle (at that time), Jones proved himself the American best... I think for a time (brief time) Collins was considered a threat.

Jones' longest spell was as a Light Heavy, and Michaelswecki was his biggest loss. But neither IMO, can be as argued as much as the Sven/Joe rivarly. The practically had identical resumes in terms of quality of opponent.

He was only considered a threat in his own head. He'd have been dismantled in three rounds by a peak Jones, good chin or not.

[stujones]

Maybe, but he did beat Eubank and Benn - Jones beat pretty much everyone else. So between them they were the clear #1 and #2 in the devision and it would have been a specticle.

I honestly feel, that is a bigger loss on the Jones resume than not fighting Hopkins post Trinidad (sorry, post when Hopkins fought Trinidad).

Michaelswecki is the bigger loss though - but then Roy moved up both times when negotations broke down and seeked other challenges.

[stujones]

Anyway: personally, Calzaghe's style has always annoyed me & his laugh-a-minute public persona isn't exactly magnetic. But to claim Ottke as some kind of boxing god & dismiss Calzaghe is at best misguided & worst disingenuous. Joe has achieved a lot, & we'll miss him when he's gone & we've got no-one holding a title. The worst you could say about them is that they are on a par with each other, with Joe getting extra kudos for beating the better guys (in the end, like).

I aint claiming Ottke is a God - just Joe's natural rival. I aint calling Ottke a legend, a Hall of Famer, or an all time great. Just as a person who made 20 defences, partially unified the belts (more meaningful belts although that is a moot point) for 8 of Joe's 10 year reign - he cannot be dismissed as a minor blip and neither could a fight just be laughed off as a forgone conclusion, especially as two common opponents said it's a tough call.

[Autobarn]

Stu, Ottke's not that good. He's just a good amateur boxer who was matched well, was helped by referees a lot, and should have 2 or 3 defeats. If we turn it around, he never tried to get fights with Beyer and Calzaghe.

Calzaghe beat Brewer and Mitchell - Ottke's biggest "scalps" - more convincingly than Ottke. I can't believe that Ottke ruined them.

Kessler's an excellent fighter and he's only in the middle of his career. He went for the unifications quite early on, blew out Beyer, fell short vs Calzaghe but props for trying.

I like Kessler's abilities and attitude better than any of the above guys. He certainly did things the "proper" way - no glaring holes in comp, no big gimmes (even Haussler was a mandatory), no home cooking, no controversies, even beating challengers in their backyards when he had to. Just dominated and KO'd good fighters and looked for the biggest fights. But going right into the lion's den, with a bad hand, vs a Joe ignited by home crowd, and he lost. I think it would all have worked out better if the guy who did things "properly" had become the undisputed champ, but it didn't happen that way. I think Kessler will use the loss as a plus, and - like I've said earlier - he seems to be poised for some really good fights that will move him well forward. As opposed to taking the unbeaten careful route ala Calzaghe and Ottke. Perhaps Kessler will prove the solid, proper way to be the most rewarding, in the long term.

[Autobarn]

Would we all be happier if Joe had beaten Ottke, rather than Kessler?

Is this just a culty British thing?

Kessler made a great case for himself, battered Andrade on HBO, and HBO wanted to make the fight.

[Captain Hook]

Would we all be happier if Joe had beaten Ottke, rather than Kessler?

Is this just a culty British thing?

Kessler made a great case for himself, battered Andrade on HBO, and HBO wanted to make the fight.

I wouldn't be happier. Reid went over and beat Ottke years after JC had beaten Reid, and lost a decision. If Joe had gone over it could have happened to him and then we'd be even more pissed off with the German for his joke of a title reign. Two or three of his wins were very dubious.

[Datsue]

I wouldn't be happier. Reid went over and beat Ottke years after JC had beaten Reid, and lost a decision. If Joe had gone over it could have happened to him and then we'd be even more pissed off with the German for his joke of a title reign. Two or three of his wins were very dubious.

Agreed. I've written on here before that I'm glad I didn't have to see Calzaghe & Ottke fight. It would have been mind-bogglingly ugly.

[hitman_hatton1]

i still think this is a good fight.

but obviously not the fight it would have been 6 or 7 yrs ago.

i'd rather see jones in there than a non proven no mark like carl froch.

[hitman_hatton1]

Maybe, but he did beat Eubank and Benn - Jones beat pretty much everyone else. So between them they were the clear #1 and #2 in the devision and it would have been a specticle.

I honestly feel, that is a bigger loss on the Jones resume than not fighting Hopkins post Trinidad (sorry, post when Hopkins fought Trinidad).

Michaelswecki is the bigger loss though - but then Roy moved up both times when negotations broke down and seeked other challenges.

i disagree with that.

jones and hopkins should have worked it out and fought back in 02 or 03.

both too stubborn over money.

particularly hopkins who wouldn't accept a 60/40.

despite losing to jones years earlier.

[Deserter]

I know its a curious one to admit but its the Glen Catley one that pisses me off the most. There was a guilt edge chance to make a big-fight in Britian, both fighters from the south-west, both with a following and a belt.

It was a no-brainer to me.

Who was Catley promoted by at the time, and could anyone illuminate my sad existance with the revelation it was discussed or came close to being put together.

I know Catley isn't James Toney but it would have been more meaningful, entertaining and exciting than some of the dross at the time.

Joe would have made a horrible mess of Catley tho, i cant imagine Glen would be that up for the fight until he had made a few quid defending the WBC belt

Exactly. Joe had already destroyed Glen in the amateurs (think that as with Francis it was inside a round) and while you can't assume that would transfer automatically to the pros, I think Catley knew that Joe had his number.
It's worth remembering that Catley was never a natural super-middle and it was his sheer willpower that allowed him to pull off wins at super-middle that on paper should have been beyond him - one of the best examples of an over-achiever that I can think of.

[stujones]

Would we all be happier if Joe had beaten Ottke, rather than Kessler?

Is this just a culty British thing?

Kessler made a great case for himself, battered Andrade on HBO, and HBO wanted to make the fight.

I wouldn't be happier. Reid went over and beat Ottke years after JC had beaten Reid, and lost a decision. If Joe had gone over it could have happened to him and then we'd be even more pissed off with the German for his joke of a title reign. Two or three of his wins were very dubious.

Ottke was nearing the end when he fought Reid, and sorry wasn't Calzaghe vs Reid a tad controvesial also? If Ottke was so bad, why wouldn't a KO been on the Cards.

Sorry, you simply cannot call him "not very good", the guy reigned for 8 years. I aint calling him a great or anything - but he was a solid champion. You all say he should have had a few defeats - but there is not one fight with Ottke in which everyone thought the opponent was robbed.... Calzaghe had the same with 2 of his fights.

Autobarn you say Ottke was a well matched fighter who didn't want anything of Joe or Beyer.... and the difference from Joe is. Yes there is 2006-2008 Calzaghe which puts him ahead of Ottke, but then in the view of a fair few he lost one of those fights.

I disagree that Calzaghe's performance vs .Mitchell was more impressive than Ottke's..... Ottke's was different, but he boxed his head off IMO

[WildWaylon]

Bunce is a star and with his humour gets the work. His knowledge of the sport is pretty good so lets not knock him if he sometimes contradicts himself. I find him entertaining and an asset to boxing.