BoxRec

Any good?

Just read the Duran/Barkley thread, was having a look at his record and noticed he fought for the IBF LHW title against Maske, a fighter I've never heard of. Maske had ten successful defences of his IBF title before losing to Virgil Hill and then winning the rematch, was he any good?

Well of course he was good. He lacked real power and any fan base outside of Germany though. He could outpoint just about anyone around bar the bigger talents, such as a peak Hill and say Roy Jones. A very high level operator!

Maske beat a 34-year-old version of Barkley that had been KO'd twice since beating anyone with a pulse. Maske was a good boxer but essentially a lesser version of Ottke, an alphabet belt holder who was never the best in his division, a boxer who never ventured out of his back yard and failed at home when he tried to take on the division's best

I'd say he was better than ottke.

Very tall for a light heavy. Well schooled and good jab and defence. Also known as the gentleman for good reason. Just lacked power and looked a little stiff at times but a product of the old East German school if I remember correctly. Also had an excellent chin.

Flicking over his record the opposition was a bit average. To be fair Ottke faced a better level of fighter, and had a reasonable number of home town decisions because of that.

Looking purely at boxrec is never a good way to compare fighters.

Ottke was known as the phantom with good reason, he would flick out a jab and skit around the ring and was the beneficiary of some questionable judging and refereeing on a couple of occasions.

I don't quite subscribe to the theory that Ottke never won a legit decision as some like to claim but I'd say having watched the majority of their title fights live on TV at the time, that Maske was the better fighter/boxer and beat better men.

I think Roccigianni, Williams, Hill etc is better than Mitchell, Mundine, & Brewer. Yes you could throw in some additional names for Ottke but the majority of them did next to nothing at world level. The win over Johnson, well he was down at super middle and right in the middle of an appalling series of losses. I remember Johnson being livid that he lost but I thought he was well beaten, despite the late surge.

orbtastic wrote:Looking purely at boxrec is never a good way to compare fighters.

Ottke was known as the phantom with good reason, he would flick out a jab and skit around the ring and was the beneficiary of some questionable judging and refereeing on a couple of occasions.

I don't quite subscribe to the theory that Ottke never won a legit decision as some like to claim but I'd say having watched the majority of their title fights live on TV at the time, that Maske was the better fighter/boxer and beat better men.

I think Roccigianni, Williams, Hill etc is better than Mitchell, Mundine, & Brewer. Yes you could throw in some additional names for Ottke but the majority of them did next to nothing at world level. The win over Johnson, well he was down at super middle and right in the middle of an appalling series of losses. I remember Johnson being livid that he lost but I thought he was well beaten, despite the late surge.

I'm not buying the level of opposition argument. Maske's peak is represented effectively by two wins over Rocky, who was no great shakes really. Eubank matches him in that department. There are a lot of C level fighters on Maske's record. Whereas Otkke had more Bs, and more young, hungry challengers.

Seriously, you rate Mitchell or Brewer more than PC Williams? Really?

I once spent two days arguing with polecat over whether Wlad or Vitali hits harder, orb mate.

The guy often either is spouting complete shite, is on a wind-up or is the kind of person who'd gladly have it out with you over such contentious topics as the relative positions of the sky & the sea.

Just a head's-up.

ah, let me guess, Vitali has a better stoppage % = castiron indicator that he was the bigger puncher.

I'm not arguing, he's just taking his time coming round to my [sensible] POV, based on having watched them all fight!

I'd take Maske to beat Ottke in a head to head @ 175, no problem. Maske beat him easily an ama. Here they are (you will no doubt be disgusted at Ottke's barnet and 'tache combo):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUM97hp3RE

orbtastic wrote:I'm not arguing, he's just taking his time coming round to my [sensible] POV, based on having watched them all fight!

never had you down as a dewey-eyed optimist, mate.....

It's early, spring is here and I've just had another 40 sacks of manure delivered, my guard is down slightly.

orbtastic wrote:It's early, spring is here and I've just had another 40 sacks of manure delivered, my guard is down slightly.

Datsue wrote:I once spent two days arguing with polecat over whether Wlad or Vitali hits harder, orb mate.

The guy often either is spouting complete shite, is on a wind-up or is the kind of person who'd gladly have it out with you over such contentious topics as the relative positions of the sky & the sea.

Just a head's-up.

Err, I don't recall debating Wlad/Vit punching power. Prince Charles Williams was definitely good. It was a good scalp to win the title with. I just think there are too many Scully types on Maske's championship record. The level of Otkke opponents is actually pretty half-decent, even if he barely scrapped past a lot of them. I don't think what I'm saying is unreasonable! Neither was I saying Otkke was the better fighter. The debate was level of opposition. As for punching power, clearly Wlad is the more athletic and harder hitting but lacks the toughness of his brother. Vitali was the harder man to beat.

Any particular fights I should look out for? Yt has both Virgil Hill fights so I'm going to start there.

Dariusz Michalczewski was a better fighter, in that he had genuine punch power and was a good finisher.

SNG wrote:Any particular fights I should look out for? Yt has both Virgil Hill fights so I'm going to start there.

He was never particularly exciting to watch.

The first Roccigianni fight is probably the best in terms of entertainment.

Maybe the PCW fight and the Barkley beatdown.

Both Hill fights are pretty dull.

Henry Maske was an excellent boxer, probably one of the best 3 or 4 boxers ever to come out of Germany, next to Schmeling, Rocchigiani and Gustav Scholz.

Personally I think Maske was better than Sven Ottke. Ottke was moving around, moving away a lot while relying on the judges. I hate to repeat it cause I liked Ottke but I scored at least 3 or 4 fights against him.
Maske was not running away, he had a very high ring IQ and was outthinking his opponents.

I'd agree with the folk who mentioned the Williams win.....Prince Charles was useful and a decent enough champion.

But there's a lot of padding in there and I am not sure the much-later revenge win over Hill is a sign of potential greatness. Like so many of the German-based champs of that era you are left with the annoying sense that they could and should have done more despite their impressive records and multiple title defences.

I wish Maske and Dariusz had fought some bigger names and tested themselves against the best.....but the model surely worked for them, money in the bank when they retired and a degree of big celebrity in their own country. Probably summed-up as 'good career mangement' but less than entertaining for the wider, world boxing community.