Did Calzaghe avoid Ottke like the plague?

yeah I understand your frustration - if only joe had won one of the three major titles and stuck with defending that then you'd never have this problem.



aint no wba or wbc gonna ask you to defend against a king of 4-6 rounders when you destroyed him first time. hell, they wouldn't want you facing a 4-6 round king once, no way they'd drag their titles so low.

 

I dont give a flying **** what kind of crusade your on to devalue the WBO title entire history. Give it up already, or at least stop trying to give me this **** when you know full well I dont agree with you.

The WBO was not the most important belt in the divisionbut it was a major belt recognized as a legitimate world title. It had as much history as the WBA and WBC, fighters challenging for it had been of no lesser quality that those challenging for the WBA, WBC and IBF belts, the WBO had the best lineage of champions, the only area in which it was anyway inferior to the other three belts was in the importance the organization it represented.

Veit earned his second shot. He became madatory for the WBO title by going fifteen fights unbeaten after his first loss, winning the European belt, winning the WBO interim belt against Salem when it looked like Calzaghe was going to move up a division and defended it successfully against Brewer prior to his fight for the full belt. Of those fifteen fights Veit had after losing to Calzaghe the first time only one ended in under 8 rounds so calling him the "king of 4-6 rounders" is bull**** when referring to the second fight.

Again, are you seriously trying to tell me that it is completely impossible and unthinkable that a fighter who lost one shot at a World title can never hope to become mandatory challenger for that same belt in the future?

 

Hi mate,

How's things?

As I've said before, I like you as a poster, because I think your one of the fairest fans of Joe's, who's honest and objective.

The only thing I can add here, is just a couple of points.

1. Rightly or wrongly, the WBO wasn't really respected back then, and the likes of the Ring Magazine didn't even have ratings for it.

2. IMHO, The Veit rematch was a joke. Because Joe was too great to be in that position where he had to face him again. I understand that he was proud of his belt, and he was a mandatory etc. But Joe should have been fighting better opponents at LHW at that point. He should have moved up when he couldn't get the Ottke fight, and showed the rest of the world how great he was. He'd said in 2004, that he knew he had to move up, and he wanted recognition and bigger fights etc. Yet for some reason, he remained at SMW to fight Salem and Veit etc. He was too good to be fighting those guys at that stage of his career.

 

Titles do not matter. Calzaghe was largely seen as the best man in the division. Fight did not happen cause Ottke only fought at home.

 

:good

 

The thing I agree that the WBO wasn't respected as an organization back then wasn't considered one of the major, but the Super Middleweight division kind of operated in a vaccum.

Apart from the IBF all the titles became active around the same time and the IBF only had three-to-four years over the others, so none could claim to be the Division's top title on legacy.

When comparing the standard of opposition each champion in the division had had to fight there was no clear difference in quality between any of them. Not in the talent packed days of the early 1990's or in the weak days of the early 2000's.

The lineage of champions was best with the WBO. Hearns-Eubank-Collins-Calzaghe. Not a weak or transitional champion amungst them. None of the other titles in the division could claim that. They had their own stand-out top level champions but they had all had transition or weak champions as well - the WBC the worst of them in this regard.

Further the WBC had recognized the WBO title as equal to its own when it had ordered two unification fights. Leonard vs Hearns back in 1989 and Benn vs Eubank in 1993.

So when I say the WBO was recognized as a legitimate world title I am talking solely about the Super Middleweight division and its title there. I recognize that the importance of the organization meant that it was not as important as the others but its history within the division, the young division began almost at the same time it did, gave it legitimacy as a world title at that weight.

You know that I consider Calzaghe to have been lacking in the ambition department, I dont know if I said it to you or if you saw me say it but I have said several times on this website that I consider Calzaghe the spiritual successor to Eubank - in that both could have challenged themselves much more than they did but they were happy to just sit on their WBO title and make easy money against opponents that weren't a threat.

He was better than the fights he took during that time and he should have moved up but, reconsiling with his lack of ambition, reality has to be accepted that he was not in any hurry to do so. This being the case I still dont think anyone has the right to **** on Calzaghe for mandatory defences of his title, especially in the case of Veit when he had no interest in the fight and forced to do it or lose the belt.

 

It might come down to the promoters. Both Calzaghe and Ottke said they wanted the fight but it never happened, Sauerland and W-arren claimed to be sending serious and big money offers but getting no response. Maybe it just came down to the fact that Sauerland was not prepared to give up anything he had that might tarnish his cash-cow and W-arren wasn't prepared to do so either so nothing got done.

 

no he did not aviod him he just retired before turning 50 which suited joe rather well

 

where were 43 i think may be 42 of joes fights take place two of thoses away from home were his last two piggy bank fights , that being against some one in his own autobio claimed before the jones fight he declared to be shot to pieces and still lives off the back of that win http://www.boxingforum24.com/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif

 

That's Calzaghe's entire career right there.

 

Technically yes it's a bit much to criticise Calzaghe for facing a mandatory when he seemingly had no choice. Viet was crushed in the first fight and Calzaghe two previous opponents were equally non deserving of a shot at a title, so it was a hard pill to swallow for boxing fans for Calzaghe to face a third opponent in a row that simply didn't have a hope in hell of even being competitive.

But the reality of the situation wasn't so clear cut. Freeman Barr was Calzaghe's WBO mandatory for over 2 years yet he never fought him. W.a.r.r.e.n had enough influence with the WBO to ensure the mandatory with Veit didn't have to happen but with German TV money it was a financially appealing fight. Calzaghe could have easily fought a better opponent and side stepped Viet, the Freeman Barr situation clearly shows that. But Calzaghe then was never one to take a risk, Veit was another guaranteed easy defence for decent money.

 

if you have a problem with me telling you that fact that the belt lwas lesser than the others, you should address your own limitations.

Veit is king of 4-6 rounders, he has a majority resume made up of 4-6 round fight wins. there is nothing wrong with referring to him like this.

YOu cant change his resume by writing what you want. the man was a serious flop compared to lfighters who were fighting upward of 10 rounds early on in their careers as is expected of a legit decent pro. but for a then less than sterling belt like the wbo one was at the time I guess this kind of opposition was acceptable.

why you keep bringin up this mandatory thing. I knew it was mandatory when I read about it in tiny smallprint in a newspaper back when it happened, was it a decade ago ?. you are telling me nothing new, but you keep repeating it as if its some novel point.

stop your bull**** pretending you are making a point that needs making to anyone.

 

yes, its now been established that calzaghe likes to fight lots of weaklings whilst ottke was the man holding and defending the more important belts.

Though otkke was definitely the biggest cheat though.

 

Hell no and I am the last person to wave the flag for Calzaghe. Joe fought and trashed Mario Veit twice in Cardiff and in Niedersachsen and Veit was taller, stronger and more dangerous as a fighter. David Starie, Byron Mitchell, Robin Reid, Charles Brewer, Tocker Pudwill were all common opponents. But look at this, Brewer who lost by a considerable margin to Joe took Ottke twice the distance and lost twice by SD, Pudwill who was stopped by Joe took Ottke the distance and lost by decision ( wide nonetheless).
Now, concerning the other guys that Joe didn't fight like Thomas Tate that survived two rounds against RJJ in the first defense of his IBF title won back in 1993, Sven outpointed him very comfortably but in the first time when the fight had to be halted in the 11th the scores were pretty close. Close decision calls - 7 to 5 rounds against the Road Warrior Glenn Johnson, SD win 7-5 or 8-4 rds against Byron Mitchell, MD win against Mads Larsen in one of his last fights 7 rounds to 5 in two judges cards. Again, two 7 to 5 rds against Reid in two judges cards and a UD in almost his last fight, 7rds to 5 or 8 rds to 4 against David Starie, 8rds to 4 against Rudy Markussen.
Best wins-results: Giovanni Nardiello KO 3, Anthony Mundine - KO10, Joe Gatti ( who was stopped in 1 by Terry Norris) TKO9.

This is material of a technical amateurish boxer who developed into a pro and conserved his stance and his ways to outpoint or outscore his opponents. Not to be compared with Calzaghe, Roy Jones, James Toney or even the old British SMW like Collins, Eubank or Benn.