Page 2 of 2
Posted: 21 Dec 2004, 13:00
by BubiScholz
Priff wrote: blabla.
sorry, but i don´t want to fight with anyone. but to compare Ottke and Harrison is like comparing a little Rover with a Maybach. that´s ridiculuos. not more. end of discussion. it´s always the same when it comes to Ottke.
Posted: 21 Dec 2004, 13:07
by Deserter
BubiScholz wrote:don't call it a comeback wrote:Interesting interview. Its nice to see Ottke being realistic about himself and his achievements and his, er, style. But he doesnt have much choice really. The book on Ottke is written and he knows his place in history will be within a narrow box of achievement and his recognition outside Germany will always be limited.
I do think he overdoes the skill thing though - claiming that the Germans appreciated his style because they like to see skill whereas the rest of us like to see people getting whacked about. Its pretty damn patronising and not true. True boxing fans recognise great skill when they see it and skill and defensive ability is not just about nicking rounds. We appreciate Cotto as much for his ability to keep his chin out of trouble and control the pace of his fights as much as his offensive flurries. Ottke had a much more one dimensional approach - especially in his later years, when he reduced the spectacle to almost zero. Lets face it, even judged on his ability to entertain by being elusive, he was no Pernell Whitaker.
He fought in the style that was best suited to him winning but he was rarely dominant - not in any single fight, hardly in any single round. And dominance counts when you think about greatness.
Props to him for his doggedness and being the home fighter helps if you always have to go to the cards. He retired unbeaten and never fought on the road. Glen Johnson has travelled everywhere and got beaten a stack of times. I know who will go down in history as the better fighter.
bullshit. nobody would say: "Damon Hill is the better Formula1-driver than M.Schumacher because of the driving-style". but here you compare the success of boxers with theit style. nonsens. Johnson is a good boxer. Ottke is one of the best in his weight class of all times. again, not because of his style. but this is, according to his record, irrelevant.
There's an inherent contradiction in what you're saying as it's precisely because M. Schumacher dominates races that he's hailed as great.
There's absolutely no doubt that to be considered a great in boxing you have to have achieved dominant victories against quality opposition and/or decisively beaten other would-be greats.
Ottke, as with Calzaghe, fails on both counts.
Posted: 21 Dec 2004, 14:20
by BubiScholz
Ottke fought the best and won vs the best. he was the best in his active time. end of discussion.
Posted: 21 Dec 2004, 18:22
by don't call it a comeback
BubiScholz wrote:don't call it a comeback wrote:Interesting interview. Its nice to see Ottke being realistic about himself and his achievements and his, er, style. But he doesnt have much choice really. The book on Ottke is written and he knows his place in history will be within a narrow box of achievement and his recognition outside Germany will always be limited.
I do think he overdoes the skill thing though - claiming that the Germans appreciated his style because they like to see skill whereas the rest of us like to see people getting whacked about. Its pretty damn patronising and not true. True boxing fans recognise great skill when they see it and skill and defensive ability is not just about nicking rounds. We appreciate Cotto as much for his ability to keep his chin out of trouble and control the pace of his fights as much as his offensive flurries. Ottke had a much more one dimensional approach - especially in his later years, when he reduced the spectacle to almost zero. Lets face it, even judged on his ability to entertain by being elusive, he was no Pernell Whitaker.
He fought in the style that was best suited to him winning but he was rarely dominant - not in any single fight, hardly in any single round. And dominance counts when you think about greatness.
Props to him for his doggedness and being the home fighter helps if you always have to go to the cards. He retired unbeaten and never fought on the road. Glen Johnson has travelled everywhere and got beaten a stack of times. I know who will go down in history as the better fighter.
bullshit. nobody would say: "Damon Hill is the better Formula1-driver than M.Schumacher because of the driving-style". but here you compare the success of boxers with theit style. nonsens. Johnson is a good boxer. Ottke is one of the best in his weight class of all times. again, not because of his style. but this is, according to his record, irrelevant.
bullshit? bullshit? bull-shit?
aggressive little fellar aren't you. and you are wrong. When Hill and Schumacher were battling for supremacy - before Schumacher won all those titles - it was commonly said that Schumacher was the better driver because of his more exciting, dynamic and, yes, aggressive style. Since then Schmumacher has clearly proved himself the better driver and is the one that will go down a legend - people will cross oceans to watch him drive. He has added to his sport and helped shape the standards of excellence. Its not just about the record or the wins in the book.
If Ottke had half of your aggression in battling for a lost cause more people might be prepared to agree with your statement that he is one of the best of all time.
Posted: 21 Dec 2004, 18:40
by nickd
Ottke did fight the best available, there were some debatable decisions along the way but have to say his reign ranks higher than Calzaghe's - consider common opponents - Ottke beat them first.... and he held 2 proper versions of the world title not the WBO.
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 05:44
by Old bones Ian
007 wrote:Ottke did fight the best available, there were some debatable decisions along the way but have to say his reign ranks higher than Calzaghe's - consider common opponents - Ottke beat them first.... and he held 2 proper versions of the world title not the WBO.
I'd agree with that, out of opponents faced Ottke would come out on top.
And you would have to rank him higher than Calzaghe, that is not to say that i think Ottke would have beat Calzaghe.
I think history isn't going to be to kind to either of these fighters, as they never faced each other.
Posted: 22 Dec 2004, 12:16
by jamesmcdonnell
Ottke had the better reign without a doubt, more top 10 fighters in there, but he did have the advantage of knowing that if it went to points, he would get an easy win, which is some safety net. This allowed him to fight in whatever style he chose with little risk of losing unless he got sparked out.
I would have to rate Ottke as the better champion, but he was far from dominant.
Comparing motor racing with boxing is pointless, one is a clear cut case of past the post, and there's no way of getting 'dodgy' wins, you're either first past the line or you aren't
Boxing is more like high diving or figure skating when it comes to who is the best, what do you like, artistic impression or technique?
I honestly think that Calzaghe would have taken Ottke apart had they fought in their respective primes.
Posted: 25 Dec 2004, 09:26
by {amateur}
haha sounds like Ottke has got the life!
Posted: 25 Dec 2004, 10:03
by Bard of Boxrec
007 wrote:Ottke did fight the best available, there were some debatable decisions along the way but have to say his reign ranks higher than Calzaghe's - consider common opponents - Ottke beat them first.... and he held 2 proper versions of the world title not the WBO.
opponents ottke fought first- Mitchell, Brewer. Pudwill.
opponents calzaghe fought first- Reid, Starie, Thornberry.
Hmmm.
The 'leftovers' debate remains, according to fact, total nonsense.
Ottke only fought one more top guy than calzaghe- mads larsen, and he LOST. Convincingly. Anyone that says otherwise has no knowledge of how to score a fight.
if only charles brewer had been smart and never gone to germany, we would probably never have had to suffer sven ottke.
And remember- I'm no calzaghe fan.
Posted: 25 Dec 2004, 13:26
by steve689
Riddick Blowe wrote:Ottke only fought one more top guy than calzaghe- mads larsen
Good points but what about Anthony Mundine?
Posted: 25 Dec 2004, 16:12
by Bard of Boxrec
he was pretty much a novice at the time, and is as subjective a 'top fighter' as most people on calzaghes record, at the time he fought ottke.
Posted: 29 Dec 2004, 06:45
by hitman_hatton1
Riddick Blowe wrote:007 wrote:Ottke did fight the best available, there were some debatable decisions along the way but have to say his reign ranks higher than Calzaghe's - consider common opponents - Ottke beat them first.... and he held 2 proper versions of the world title not the WBO.
opponents ottke fought first- Mitchell, Brewer. Pudwill.
opponents calzaghe fought first- Reid, Starie, Thornberry.
Hmmm.
The 'leftovers' debate remains, according to fact, total nonsense.
Ottke only fought one more top guy than calzaghe- mads larsen, and he LOST. Convincingly. Anyone that says otherwise has no knowledge of how to score a fight.
if only charles brewer had been smart and never gone to germany, we would probably never have had to suffer sven ottke.
And remember- I'm no calzaghe fan.
i thought reid beat ottke as well. i had reid 3 pts up at the finish.
mind u calzaghe has a close one with reid. i only thought calzaghe won that fight by 1 pt and it would have been even but for that harsh reid point deduction.
Posted: 29 Dec 2004, 07:22
by Raff The Frenchman
Ottke lost twice in his career...perhaps 3 times...i had 1st fight vs Brewer for Brewer, Reid and Larsen...also Mudine was outpointing him when he got KTFO...STILL he was a very good technician and a fine boxer who always was well prepared...a pity he started his career so late and never stepped out from Germany...
Posted: 29 Dec 2004, 07:52
by nickd
steve689 wrote:Riddick Blowe wrote:Ottke only fought one more top guy than calzaghe- mads larsen
Good points but what about Anthony Mundine?
Mundine lost to Siaca - that would never happen to any of the top guys the guy is as one dimensional and slow as they come.
Posted: 31 Dec 2004, 11:43
by Lickszz
I'm amazed how much he managed to acheive. However, I was no fan of his style. He used to steel his victory's without taking any risks and always doing just enough. Reminded me of Eubank in a way but at least he had Charima and skills in the tank when required.