BoxRec

Sven ottke the most overprotected boxer in history what a pile of W... how could he be classed a champion he was sh.t !

Quite right there greenyox, I aint really disputing. Although I don't think you can class Mundine as a Light Middle - he has had one fight at that weight and looked dead at the weight. I don't think Mundine will never fight at Middle again either.

Anyway, no problem - agree with what you said. Shame Ottke vs Joe never happened, it wouldn't have been the forgone conclusion people think.

As I said I agree with what you say, just don't think I've ever seen anyone commend Joe for having "balls" before and taking major risks. But your right compared to Ottke.

Ottke wasn't shit at all..... he was actually pretty good.

The problem was the number of close decisions that always went his way and some favourable reffing.

But was some of that much worse than the gift decisions often given to average prospects over journeymen, or the premature stoppages?

They must have been back handing the judges as the robberies in his fights should be legendary. He should feel embaressed with his record because he will know he did get beat in quite a few of those fights.

He is never a hof, never.

Examples of these quite a few fights then?

I think both his and Calzaghes reigns would have been held in much higher regard had they met before retirement. it was such an obvious match-up to make but i would say both of them were far to scared to risk the 0 away from home at that time.

How do the rest of you see that matchup going? It may be bias but i personally think Joe's offence was that little bit better than Ottke's defensive abillities ( not seen massive amounts btw) and he would have won a close decision.

funtime wrote:I think both his and Calzaghes reigns would have been held in much higher regard had they met before retirement. it was such an obvious match-up to make but i would say both of them were far to scared to risk the 0 away from home at that time.

How do the rest of you see that matchup going? It may be bias but i personally think Joe's offence was that little bit better than Ottke's defensive abillities ( not seen massive amounts btw) and he would have won a close decision.

Personally I think Joe would have won handily to the neutral observer but it would depend on where the fight was held. In the Uk it would be along the lines of 117 -111 or 118-110 on all cards but in Germany it would have been something like 115-113 twice for Calzaghe and the same score for Ottke on the other card. Sven was offered the fight plenty of times apparantly but wouldn't come to the UK and Joe wouldn't go to Germany. Calzaghe will be a first ballot hall of famer, Ottke probably won't make the hall at all.

LeedsLad wrote:Ottke wasn't shit at all..... he was actually pretty good.

The problem was the number of close decisions that always went his way and some favourable reffing.

But was some of that much worse than the gift decisions often given to average prospects over journeymen, or the premature stoppages?

he was actually pretty good ?????

You must be easliy pleased.

ottke didnt really fight any of the best and some of his wins were actual robberies. I think sometimes the unbeaten factor makes fighters affraid to go out and put themselves to the test.

Dont get me wrong he fought some decent fighters but if he had got in the ring with any of the top names he would have lost.

So reading this thread most people make him decent but not a great?

I'd agree with that.

Too many question marks over quality of opposition, some of the decisions and the fact that he didn't fight outside of home territory, in my opinion, mean he definitely can't be bracketed as a great.

CB wrote:So reading this thread most people make him decent but not a great?

I'd agree with that.

Too many question marks over quality of opposition, some of the decisions and the fact that he didn't fight outside of home territory, in my opinion, mean he definitely can't be bracketed as a great.

You've summed up the general feeling regarding Ottke from all the different forums.

Got to remember he was 30 when turning pro, there's not been many middles that have had success turning pro so late.

He never got into more trouble than the judges could get him out of so, yes...just.

Was he an all time great? No. But should he get in the IBHOF? Well if you compare him to many boxers that are already in there, for sure he should get in. He was a very good fighter. 21 defences against mostly decent opposition. Boring as fvck to watch but come on, fighters with far worse resumes have got into the HOF.

No he was not great, he was a joke.

And people may not like Calzaghe but in my opinion he never lost a fight, unlike Ottke.

For starters, Reid did a number on him and was shafted.

Calzaghe vs Reid was close but the decision was right.

No. You become a great fighter by beating or at least holding your own other great fighters. Shares a lot of Calzaghe's opposition while struggling more in each fight and lacking the biggest names on Joe's record. A great should in general make a journeyman look just that. Ottke's not really a great, never was he really even considered the best in his division.

He was a good boxer and probably better than he generally gets credit for, but didn't test himself and you have to think it's because if he stepped up he would be found out. You can name a lot of Super Middleweights over the past 20 years who would beat him.

Captain Hook wrote:No he was not great, he was a joke.

And people may not like Calzaghe but in my opinion he never lost a fight, unlike Ottke.

For starters, Reid did a number on him and was shafted.

Calzaghe vs Reid was close but the decision was right.

A tad harsh - all about opinions though.

Personally I felt none of the so called "robberies" that Ottke's opponents had were robberies as such. The one I disagreed with the verdict was the Larsen fight - I thought the Dane did enough there in a close one.

I definately don't think Reid did a number on him at all - it was a close fight and it was still fairly close if you have that 3 point swing. I thought Ottke won by 2 if you score as the ref scored it. Robin faded in the end quite considerably and his work rate was poor.

Oh... hang on - a fighter who fades at the end and has poor work rate, but generally "bosses" with counter punching and being in control of the action finishing of flurries with the eye catching shots. Sounds like a Joe Calzaghe fight in which he was, in my opinion, very lucky to get the decision.

You are right Stu, it's all about opinions and I disagree with yours!

Reid won the Ottke fight convincingly in my opinion, by at least 3 rounds.

...and I didn't feel him landing half a dozen big shots vs Calzaghe was enough to take a decision over the champ's more dominant speed and output.

Still, we all see things differently

stujones wrote:I definately don't think Reid did a number on him at all - it was a close fight and it was still fairly close if you have that 3 point swing. I thought Ottke won by 2 if you score as the ref scored it. Robin faded in the end quite considerably and his work rate was poor.

Can't remember how I scored it but seem to remember being appalled by the reffing but not the judging. Lost in all the controversy was the fact that Reid was actually very disappointing.

Captain Hook wrote:You are right Stu, it's all about opinions and I disagree with yours!

Reid won the Ottke fight convincingly in my opinion, by at least 3 rounds.

...and I didn't feel him landing half a dozen big shots vs Calzaghe was enough to take a decision over the champ's more dominant speed and output.

Still, we all see things differently

Calzaghe vs Reid was undoubtedly close. I just edged it for Robin - but it was close and it was one of those fights that whilst, a rematch would have been good to settle the score, I don't think it is a major deal that they never fought cause that was Joe at his most vulnerable IMO with his preparation. I actually have maintained that it was a "poor" performance from Reid that he didn't make certain of victory. Joe was clearly not himself.

The Hopkins fight I view differently - that one I do feel needed a rematch and personally I found it an engrossing fight. I know most people saw it dull, which is was - but I still couldn't take my eyes of it for a second.

oliverfennell wrote:

stujones wrote:I definately don't think Reid did a number on him at all - it was a close fight and it was still fairly close if you have that 3 point swing. I thought Ottke won by 2 if you score as the ref scored it. Robin faded in the end quite considerably and his work rate was poor.

Can't remember how I scored it but seem to remember being appalled by the reffing but not the judging. Lost in all the controversy was the fact that Reid was actually very disappointing.

Yep he was, Reid was very overated the only performance I ever went "wow, that was impressive" was against Wharton.... and Wharton himself was past his prime and never that great a fighter.

never a great fighter.

last 30 seconds point scorer.

used to run around the ring for 2 minutes.

pop in the flurries and win decisions every time out.

he retired without fighting calzaghe or even mentioning that he existed.

he accepted what he was.

a hometown money spinner.

but not a great fighter.

The most boring fighter ever to grace the planet (other than the Klits)

Captain Hook wrote:You are right Stu, it's all about opinions and I disagree with yours!

Reid won the Ottke fight convincingly in my opinion, by at least 3 rounds.

...and I didn't feel him landing half a dozen big shots vs Calzaghe was enough to take a decision over the champ's more dominant speed and output.

Still, we all see things differently

Thats my thoughts on both fights too. Calzaghe outlanded and outboxed reid, reid just landed 6 or 7 big eye catching shots - that doesnt get you a points victory.

And against ottke i felt he was robbed - it was along the same lines as the lewis v holyfield result imo not a won sided arse handing but definatley a hometown decision for a fighter that clearly lost.

stujones wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:You are right Stu, it's all about opinions and I disagree with yours!

Reid won the Ottke fight convincingly in my opinion, by at least 3 rounds.

...and I didn't feel him landing half a dozen big shots vs Calzaghe was enough to take a decision over the champ's more dominant speed and output.

Still, we all see things differently

Calzaghe vs Reid was undoubtedly close. I just edged it for Robin - but it was close and it was one of those fights that whilst, a rematch would have been good to settle the score, I don't think it is a major deal that they never fought cause that was Joe at his most vulnerable IMO with his preparation. I actually have maintained that it was a "poor" performance from Reid that he didn't make certain of victory. Joe was clearly not himself.

The Hopkins fight I view differently - that one I do feel needed a rematch and personally I found it an engrossing fight. I know most people saw it dull, which is was - but I still couldn't take my eyes of it for a second.

There would have been no point in a calzaghe v hopkins rematch, hopkins didnt even box in the fight, he just tried to cheat a victory. He knew if he went out and boxed calzaghe would out land him so he tried to spoil, fake injuries to get point deductions and breathers, and try to pop in some sneaky combinations inbetween.

I personally felt hopkins discraced himself with his behavior.