Whos is better? Ottkes 21 defences or Hopkins 20 defences?

Wrong again because even though your looking hard theres no contradiction here. Ive openly said Ottkes 21 defences reign is more impressive than Hopkins 20 defence reign and proven it :deal

But still your quotes cannot be trusted as I have proven you as a known liar, who changes peoples quotes.
Shameful :dead

No one has proven it otherwise. I have broken down all the points about Hopkins and Ottkes resumes and found Ottkes reign to be more impressive, not career overall.
You all keep looking for something and making up lies, but ive not said anything different. Look back over the posts

My V-Cash started on 500. I have made 3 bets in total and they have all been correct. The first ever was Cloud - Johnson. I have never lost a V-Cash bet. Check it out for yourself :deal

You are right to be worried. Realsoulja became very obsessed with me, and kept mentioning homosexuals?? No doubt hes been searching through your old posts and checking out details about you like some lost Fanboy :nut

Anyhow back to this fine debate that has succeeded 10 pages like all the great debates do.

think its fair to say that most of you have fallen into the trap of looking at Ottkes and Hopkins careers overall in your assessments rather than their respective long reigns, which was the subject where I have shown Ottkes shades Hopkins.
This has been proven with how you all base Hopkins biggest win during his reign over a former WW and a fighter with one MW fight with a hand wrap contraversy :deal

 

You have made an honest assessement of what you believe is correct, and tried to look at things fairly without being bias, although I feel Ottkes reign (not career) is better than Hopkins, I respect your opinion for your honesty.
I have said all along that many felt Ottke lost to Reid and the refereeing was awful, but also feel alot of opinion is based on that one fight rather than alot of his good work against solid (even if not thought as spectacular) world class fighters in Larsen, Mitchell (world champ), Branco (future world champ), Markussen, Mundine (future 2 time world champ), Johnson (future world champ), Brewer (world champ), Tate, etc.
Ottke wasnt a puncher so was never dominant but found a way to win. Hopkins was more dominant in his performances, but his MW reign resume isnt as impressive as Ottkes MW reign resume overall in my opinion.

 

Likewise, I have never witnessed Headbanger lose a debate on here.
You see a big problem with these minions is that they dont pay any attention to what has been written, furthering my beliefs that alot of them are complete morons.

I havent claimed Ottke is better than anyone but that his 21 defence reign at SMW is better than Hopkins 20 defence reign at MW (not career overall & not based on performance) based on overall resume.
Minions cant grasp this :desk.
Thats why are quotes :**** all over theirs, when schooling them.

Keep up the fantastic work and beware as ive shamefully exposed some of these people as liars who try to bend the truth and change peoples quotes in a shameful way :dead.
I cant respect these liars.

 

Work that out for yourself because ive never wrote that. this thread is based on Hopkins reign resume at MW compared to Ottkes reign resume at SMW

 

Lets put this straight so people understand what ive quoted, and why.
I havent said one is a better fighter than the other, or one has had a better career than the other. What I have quoted is that I feel Ottkes 21 defence reign resume is overall more impressive than Hopkins reign resume. That dosent mean performances, as if you have watched Ottke many times, which im sure you must have to pass comment, then you know Ottkes not a puncher and didnt dominate fighters but found a way to win, often being the smaller weaker puncher.

Hopkins big MW reign win was Trinidad a former WW who had, had one fight at MW surrounded by a glove wrap controversy. His other was De La Hoya who also only had one MW fight where he was lucky to get the decision and never fought as high again. I think that Eastman at the time would have beaten those fighters as they were naturally smaller fighters at a natural strength disadvantage. Think Hopkins career started at LHW and Oscars at SFW for example.
Now Hopkins beat some solid world class MWs in Joppy, Holmes, Eastman, Johnson who hadnt fought in class before, Echoles but when you break it down its not as amazing as his followers would have people believe.

Ottke beat Brewer a world champ, a world class fighter who wasnt spectacular but solid, in his 13th fight. He went on to beat B Mitchell a 2 time champ at the time and reigning champ, now that isnt much different to Joppy and Holmes with those names, but its the rest that I think makes Ottkes reign resume better. He beat a more experienced comfy at the weight G Johnson a future world champ, Mundine a future 2 time world champ, Branco a future world champ, and solid world class fighters in Larsen, Markussen, Tate, Reid, Starie & Krajanc.

Consider only 2 fighters Hopkins beat became champs again, and one of those was in a lower division, yet three of the fighters Ottke beat became world champs and all of their success has been in the same or higher divisions than he fought. Not to mention Larsen and Markussen became European champs after.

Hopefully this helps with some understanding