Like it or not Sven Ottke is great!!

First topic message reminder :

My Father told me years ago it doesn't matter how you win as long as you win???...Always remembered that.... generally every time I bemoaned my luck!!!!....

Which brings us to Ottke how ever you dissect it we have a guy who retired undefeated..fought in over 20 world title fight, beat some quality names in Brewer twice, Johnson, Reid etc.....Had eight years longevity and got out on top!!!!

Hey I've seen the Red Sox win games they didn't deserve but hey they got the win....

Fact is in sport winning is everything and this guy won and had an exemplary record.....encompassing almost everything needed to be an alltimer.....

Will history remember just his achievements or how he achieved them...remains to be seen..

But....He achieved them..and that's the BOTTOM LINE!!!!!

So what you're saying Truss is that it doesn't matter whether you deserve the win or not because as long as the judges rule in your favour and the history books show you won that's all that matters? So all arguements of robberies against fighters are null and void because the history book alone should be enough to tell us who won each fight?

truss no offence but youre being very childish here. balti has merely highlighted points that contradicts your arguement and instead of debating with him you choose to make remarks such as: go away.

balti isnt doing anything wrong but it seems the mere fact that he disagrees with you is reason enough to insult him.

please cut it out and at least debate with him sensibly as he has raised very valid points which you are yet to engage. ive had this problem with you myself, please act your age and not your shoe size you big beefster you.

Not being childish if you see the amount of articles this guy goes..

"been done before"

"pathetic" without elaborating etc..

Alex if he acts like he's been doing on here that's fine....I don't mind a disagreement but i don't like hit and run...

No robberies are fine sweetie but at the end of the day..the judges called it and he won..

It's not his fault...and he got the win..

The title of the article is..... like it or not ottke is great..

Not saying I agree with the overall premise.. but that his record makes a good case..

Exemplary...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No robberies are fine sweetie but at the end of the day..the judges called it and he won..

It's not his fault...and he got the win..

Of course, but that doesn't make him great - just fortunate.

Tell me someone who's been great that hasn't been fortunate????

Walcott - Louis
Norton - Ali twice

Utd with late goals maybe deflections...

Come on......I understand this guy has had some controversial decisions but the judges scored for him and they are legitimate wins Mate...However you wrap it..

How is the kid anyway....you bum.

Yes but Ali proved his greatness in other ways. Ottke was a good fighter whose record flatters him, there is a difference.

Kid is fine thanks, 1st birthday next month, can't believe how quickly a year as gone! And yours?

My point is that if you analyse any record closely you'll find flaws .....which is why people don't tend to analyse too much.....

I thought Reid beat Calzaghe.....so what

I understand your point of view and respect your opinion as always but there is a thin line between fact and opinion????

Opinions are he was a home fighter who took hometown decisions....

Facts say he was a seven year world champion with 22 title fights behind him...

If opinions win then that's ok with me...

But facts say he's great using the formula for measuring it by...

Never said i think he's great.........Saying fact is he's great..

truss youre guilty of over analysing records yourself at times. but lets be honest you do NOT have to analyse his record very hard to realise how flattering it is!

how many times have you complained about manny marquez!?

I have to say, people often over analyse records and deconstruct them in a biased fashion to suit their argument.

A boxer has a long career and, unlike tennis, will only have 40 or so matches and everyone will be analysed. Some will be subjectively assessed and the result open to criticism. Thus, you can say Ali lost to Norton etc.

But perhaps the way the "Greats" are assessed is on a number of criterion, record, longevity, quality of opponent and wins. Ottke falls down on the latter. What were his best wins? Were they really that spectacular?

Its easy to deconstruct long careers. Pick the close, subjective win or try and trivialise the opposition. But many greats have had "shock" losses by dropping the ball and it is great credit to those who can maintain the focus. However, in Ottke's case there were a lot of dubious decisions. Not only that, you make it hard to make a case for a "defining" fight. That is a fight that really showed his "greatness". His quality of opposition was often mediocre and his performances not spectacular, although at times technically very good.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My point is that if you analyse any record closely you'll find flaws .....which is why people don't tend to analyse too much.....

I thought Reid beat Calzaghe.....so what

I understand your point of view and respect your opinion as always but there is a thin line between fact and opinion????

Opinions are he was a home fighter who took hometown decisions....

Facts say he was a seven year world champion with 22 title fights behind him...

If opinions win then that's ok with me...

But facts say he's great using the formula for measuring it by...

Never said i think he's great.........Saying fact is he's great..

Records SHOULD be analysed. Anything less is doing a disservice to the TRUE greats.

can we all calm down, this is what TRUSS does best which is toi be provocative, Ottke is no way great, we know this, so does TRUSS, he is just having some fun

Seanusarrilius wrote:can we all calm down, this is what TRUSS does best which is toi be provocative, Ottke is no way great, we know this, so does TRUSS, he is just having some fun

his idea of fun is a bit different to mine... i enjoy paintballing and the cinema...

Ottke was a long long way from great, all he had to do was stay on his feet for 12 rounds to retain his title and if the opponent started landed too many punches the ref took points off of them. I cant believe anyone could rate him as anything more than a good fighter and his unbeaten record is regarded as worthless by 99% of boxing people and fans all over the world. Even mentioning Ali in the same thread as Ottke is insulting to the Greatest, his fights with Norton were hard battles that could have gone either way Ottke's fight with Reid was not even a close fight and anywhere else on the planet thats a clear win for Reid and Ottke's fake unbeaten record would have been gone. Truss surely you are either on the wind up or you have been at the xmas booze early.

Seanusarrilius wrote:can we all calm down, this is what TRUSS does best which is toi be provocative, Ottke is no way great, we know this, so does TRUSS, he is just having some fun

Well, I am not sure it was Truss does best, but he does it... and he is right to.. its good to question the accepted wisdom... but some times he stretches plausability to breaking point.

In this case, its a valid question. In years to come, will people forget the controvecy and just remember the record. IMO no. As I said earlier, we crawl over marciano's record... which is infinitely better and tighter than Ottkes... so he won't stand scrutiny in the future. However, it is interesting to see "all time" best lists through history. When I was younger Dempsey, Walcott, Charles and Johnson were rated higher in the top 10 HWs of all time than they are now. Showing, as the those that remember them in their entirety age and die its only their records that maintain....

Happytravelling wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:can we all calm down, this is what TRUSS does best which is toi be provocative, Ottke is no way great, we know this, so does TRUSS, he is just having some fun

Well, I am not sure it was Truss does best, but he does it... and he is right to.. its good to question the accepted wisdom... but some times he stretches plausability to breaking point.

In this case, its a valid question. In years to come, will people forget the controvecy and just remember the record. IMO no. As I said earlier, we crawl over marciano's record... which is infinitely better and tighter than Ottkes... so he won't stand scrutiny in the future. However, it is interesting to see "all time" best lists through history. When I was younger Dempsey, Walcott, Charles and Johnson were rated higher in the top 10 HWs of all time than they are now. Showing, as the those that remember them in their entirety age and die its only their records that maintain....

Perhaps but will not our excellent video coverage allow us to buck that trend?

ShahenshahG wrote:

Happytravelling wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:can we all calm down, this is what TRUSS does best which is toi be provocative, Ottke is no way great, we know this, so does TRUSS, he is just having some fun

Well, I am not sure it was Truss does best, but he does it... and he is right to.. its good to question the accepted wisdom... but some times he stretches plausability to breaking point.

In this case, its a valid question. In years to come, will people forget the controvecy and just remember the record. IMO no. As I said earlier, we crawl over marciano's record... which is infinitely better and tighter than Ottkes... so he won't stand scrutiny in the future. However, it is interesting to see "all time" best lists through history. When I was younger Dempsey, Walcott, Charles and Johnson were rated higher in the top 10 HWs of all time than they are now. Showing, as the those that remember them in their entirety age and die its only their records that maintain....

Perhaps but will not our excellent video coverage allow us to buck that trend?

Those old records are still studied intensely and scrutinised ruthlessly.

ottke will be seen the exact same way in 100 years. look at how the likes of the guys we talk about judging every move. no proper boxing fan takes a record for granted especially an unbeaten one look at marciano and he was around 70 years ago!

AlexHuckerby wrote:ottke will be seen the exact same way in 100 years. look at how the likes of the guys we talk about judging every move. no proper boxing fan takes a record for granted especially an unbeaten one look at marciano and he was around 70 years ago!

Exactly. If we pay attention to only the numbers then we're ignoring a large part of the story. He'll be examined just the same as any other claimant. That's the point of comparison. I...am holding my tongue.

Just can't agree on Ottke being associated with the word great. He fought outside Germany once when he took a brave plunge across the seven seas to brave Austria I think it was. He looked distinctly ordinary against many opponents, none of whom can be considered great. Is that not already a gaping hole in your reasoning Truss? Or do you disagree with the logic that to be great you have to beat great fighters?

Whether he legitimately defeated some of his crowning opponents is questionable at the very least. Had he fought them with a different ref and under a different panel of judges he may not have been awarded the decision.

Ottke was taken the distance by Tocker Pudwill, a man who Calzaghe gets slammed for even fighting as a late replacement for crying out loud!

Sven Ottke is the textbook example of a padded, protected champion. The only thing you could say in his favour is that SMW wasn't the toughest division.

With all due respect, sometimes I honestly wonder whether you're trying to persuade people to disagree with you Truss

we all complain about JCC JR well ottke is even worse in the fact that all the decisions went to him when he clearly didnt deserve them at the very least JCC JR wins his fights as poor the opposition may be.

Thing is guys do you go on record or how it's accomplished.....

On record he is great......how it was achieved is another matter.....

Funny thing is you can play good soccer like Utd win the title four times in a row or you could play soccer the route one style ie like Stoke City and win it four timesin a row...

One is a great soccer team is the other one????

Fact is the guy WON.......and he achieved a great deal..

Not arguing with you guys really but on record you'd have to say he's great...

You've made some excellent points but this guy is a UNIQUE case.

Bored yesterday Truss? Worst drivel I seen from yourself in a while.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My Father told me years ago it doesn't matter how you win as long as you win???...Always remembered that.... generally every time I bemoaned my luck!!!!....

Which brings us to Ottke how ever you dissect it we have a guy who retired undefeated..fought in over 20 world title fight, beat some quality names in Brewer twice, Johnson, Reid etc.....Had eight years longevity and got out on top!!!!

Hey I've seen the Red Sox win games they didn't deserve but hey they got the win....

Fact is in sport winning is everything and this guy won and had an exemplary record.....encompassing almost everything needed to be an alltimer.....

Will history remember just his achievements or how he achieved them...remains to be seen..

But....He achieved them..and that's the BOTTOM LINE!!!!!

Re your dad's quote...would have thought a man as fine and apparently upstanding as that would have had more to say about sportmanship dignity and a sense of morality....Ottke kept winning, he wasn't great. They're two completely different things. Had Brian Neilssen retired after his 48th fight, his HW record would have been second only to Marciano. Would we consider the big Dane to be on a par with The Rock? No

As pointed out by many on here. Poor article, should do better, probably won't!

How you can compare Ottke to Man U is beyond me. For one thing, Utd don't have the luxury of picking who they face. For another, they don't have the luxury of residing in a weak division. Finally, they haven't performed questionably against half their opposition throughout history, just this season they've racked up scores of 5-0 and 8-2.

What's written on paper doesn't always tell the story. Some will say Brewer and/or Mitchell were robbed blind against Ottke. Others will say Reid was cheated when the ref seemed to try putting hitting Ottke off limits during the actual fight. Others still will say that while these fights were close, Ottke only just deserved them. However you look at it Ottke never gave any indication of being great, neither through the standard of opposition he fought nor his in-ring ability.

As for your "it doesn't matter how you win" policy well, a simple mistake merits a simple answer. Let's just say that cheating is an effective way of winning but cheating your fights doesn't make you great. Fighting mismatches is another simple way of winning but that doesn't make you great either.

In conclusion, winning and winning alone certainly doesn't correspond with greatness.

The way you win doesn't matter if it's fair, but if United won all 38 games and all of there goals was offside then everyone would be in uproar!!

Truss you're being silly.

He won fairly....three judges scored it for him or two anyway....

Nothing illegal..

you've said your piece....now stay on your.. I can't find a woman thread..

Come off it, you've complained about Manny - Marquez a million times and how much of a travesty it is.
Stop being hypocritical, you're just getting boring Truss, it's strange how you get your kicks.

I disagree with the statement. Greatness is a subjective matter. Not neccessarily a matter of fact.

To suggest it is impossible or irrelevant to look past the bottom line or read between the lines is shortsighted in my view, and innaccurate.

Well that's your point of view..for what it's worth..

Greatness isn't always subjective.......Greatness is taken as read in lot of cases.

Ottke is great if you ignore circumstance, seems to be what you are saying. Dont really get why to be honest.

Leon Spinks win over Ali is as good as Fraziers if you ignore circumstance....

I suspect Ottke will make HoF for political/diplomatic reasons but I doubt he will ever be seen as a great fighter and I doubt many outside Germany would argue otherwise.

He was a good, not great fighter with a good, not geat record (questionable in parts). So I dont see what makes him a great personally and have not come across too many that consider him great.

Going on his record...not a hard thing to get is it..

So because Larry Holmes has a win over Ali on his CV does that mean a massive boost to his standing? No. Because you have to look at the circumstances around it. No doubt that Holmes is great, but that win doesn't contribute to it and if you think it does Truss you're being a tad ridiculous...

manos de piedra wrote:Ottke is great if you ignore circumstance, seems to be what you are saying. Dont really get why to be honest.

Because he loves to argue with everyone.

I dont think hes a great going off his record and I dont see why one should ignore the circumstances of his reign which shed alot more light on his overall ability/record and ultimate legacy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Going on his record...not a hard thing to get is it..

Brian Neilsen 64-3

Muhammad Ali 57-5

We rate Marciano lower than Ali due to the berth of fighters he fought by looking at his record closely. Now by the way yuo're rating fighters here Truss, you would put Marciano ahead of Ali... He had a much better overall record! Surely, you would rate him higher Truss.
Seem to remember you making an article about how Ali is most certainly the best Heavyweight of all time over Louis. But Louis ended with more wins and fewer losses, why do you rate Louis below Ali?
You chat so much poo.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Well that's your point of view..for what it's worth..

Greatness isn't always subjective.......Greatness is taken as read in lot of cases.

Always the same with the attitude. Why don't you stop acting like a sulky, pouting infant? You've written something which people have pretty much unanimously disagreed with. If you don't want people to comment on your statements, keep them in your head.

Cobblers. There's a difference between winning and being given a win.

Like those that win ugly you have to think of the likes of Bernard Hopkins, or the England rugby team, Spanish football team etc. Ottke is a different matter altogether, robbed so many fighters whether it be through illegal use of the head, being given umpteen rounds he should have lost when he barely threw a punch or have a fight called off when he has been cut by a legitimate punch only to be "leading" on the cards. Complete sham of a fighter and is rightfully disdained everywhere apart from Germany.

In an ideal world the IBHOF would stop him from ever getting in but no doubt due to the hideous PC nature of the Hall they will let the fraud in one day.

cobblers....I like that word.

Mate all I'm saying is his record and longevity put him into the great category...

In the title it say's like it or not....

Never said I liked it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Guys... Walcott got screwed against Lewis...Young and Norton twice got screwed against Ali... and Sharkey got screwed against Jeffries ....

No one cares......all about the record and not how it was achieved after the smoke clears...

Yeah but Marvin Hart beat Jack Johnson but it was a huge robbery. No historian gives Hart recognition for that one. I suspect in years to come many of Ottke's wins will be similarly disregarded by history.

No one gives Hart recognition for winning the title...either.

Exactly. Which sums up my point that a lot of Ottke's work will be forgotten if it hasn't been already.

Not exactly because there are always exceptions to the rule...

Thing is Truss you are right in pointing out the numbers are good.

However, 22 world title wins would normally mean Ottke flies into the Hall on first year of eligibility. The fact it's been 3/4 years and he's still not in there says it all.

Besides, people criticse McGuigan's inclusion but he at least became world champion in the classic sense. Something that Ottke never achieved.

Curry isn't in there and Orlando Canizales is...tend to take the HOf with a pinch of salt..

But your opinion is welcome and you make some good points..

It would seem to me that the simplest means of assessing if Ottke is great is to look at how he is held in the boxing world. How many fans/experts or people in boxing consider him a bonafide great? Not many from my experience. For the simple reason that they are able to reasonably assess his career.

You seem to be arguing that he is a great on some kind of technicality which involves ignoring most evidence to the contrary. Im not sure why anyone would choose to dismiss the majority of evidence on hand in order to try and paint an accurate picture of the guys career and ability.

Is a great record and longevity a technicality..

To me that sounds like reasonable substance..

Leave it out.

Leave what out? Any argument to your point? Very well, I would prefer to discuss boxing with people who possess manners or common decency anyway.

You're not arguing you're patronising..telling me what my argument is...

On paper he's a great.......not a technicality is it???