Weakest Title Reign- Ottke Or Hopkins

ottke had no BIG names in his reign,whereas hopkins had two famous welterweights&not much else.

 

hopkins also beat a prime version of a fighter that ko'd roy jones jr ... and he also beat up tarver ..

 

tarver was'nt during his title reign&johnson peaked late.

the johnson win meant absolutely nothing til glen ko'd roy.

 

:good true,the robin reid fight was disgraceful:-(

 

Ottke without a doubt

 

Ottke genuinely beat Byron Mitchell, Glen Johnson, Brewster in their rematch, Branco and Mundine...

Though, I rank Hopkins wins over Trinidad, Jackson, Brown, Johnson (same opponent), Echols, Joppy and Eastman higher...just look how he outclassed Johnson whereas Ottke just beat him 8-4 rounds...

 

Funny how you mention Hopkin's title reign as being weak but not one mention of Calzaghe's. This thread is garbage and obviously insinuates that Bernard's title reign was somewhat of a farce. I fail to see how Hopkin's reign as middleweight champ was weak by any means. Did he fight in an era as good as when Hagler was champ? No, but he did beat some damn good fighters. I guess an undefeated Trinidad, who had destroyed Joppy in a title fight before he fought Bernard was a weak opponent....and don't give me that blown up welterweight bull**** either cause Tito was knocking middleweights the #$%# out. Echol's, an undefeated Glenn Johnson, Jackson, Allen and Lipsy was also undefeated. There is nobody on Ottke's resume that can compare with Trinidad.....Ottke was another Calzaghe that spent his whole career defending his little bs title in Europe...to f'n scared to unify and to f'n scared to fight outside of his own backyard. I never saw much of Ottke but i wonder how many of his "wins" were hometown decisions. Y'all tell me. What's up with that? Is that a prerequisate of being a European title holder? Staying in Europe and never unifying? I at least have to respect Calzaghe for finally unifying against Kessler but lets remeber one thing....Hopkins became undisputed, Ottke did not so his undefeated record don't mean dick to me, nor does his title reign. :verysad

 

This thread is made to bash both fighters since the threadstarter has a history of doing exaclty that.

 

ottke but B Hop is still the most overrated boxer in the Rings top 10 p4p

 

Ottke unified with Mitchell (IBF-WBA).

Ottke truly lost to Brewster (first fight), Reid and drew with Larsen IMHO.

 

You just proved my point...and holding the IBF and WBA does not make you undisputed does it? Hopkin's held all four major belts. :good

 

dont feed the troll

 

The mess around the situation with Ottke-Calzaghe will never be cleared up but as a boxer in the US during that time it was far easier to unify than in Europe.
When talking about boxing politics, Germany and the UK are by far the hardest to make a breaktrough for a unification fight that involves promoters from those countries.

 

I fail to see how Hopkins is overrated by any means. The fact that he is in his 40's and is beating or losing narrow split decision against other P4P talent is a testament to his greatness. You tell me another fighter in his 40's who has been as effective against Hopkins against younger, elite fighters. To say Hopkins is overrated is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but nothing surprises me any more on ESB. :verysad