Least Skilled ATG?

[raskat]

he fought some atgs and is undefeated.

u kidding? he got a gift decision in the first Brewer fight, in the Glen Johnson fight, in the Robin Reid fight. Most pple say he also got a gift in the Mads Larsen fight, first Thomas Tate fight and so on.
I personally watched and scored his fights and I can confirm he has at least 4 gift decisions on his record.
Im saying that cause a lot of pple just repeat what others say. Some say "ottke got tons of gift decisions" and some say "its a myth ottke got gift decisions, cause in truth ottke won those fights". bottom line is most pple who say those things didnt even watch it. I did watch it and I can confirm he got tons of gift decisions.

[raskat]

Huh? What ATGs did Ottke fight? Thomas Tate? :hahahaha9: Sorry, but Ottke's resume is a laughable list with tomato can after tomato can. Please spare me the "Ottke fought ATGs" BS :bull****9:

Poet

I wouldnt say Ottke only fought tomato cans cause he didnt. but the truth is he basically lost when he left the "tomato can" level and fought top guys. but he had the judges in his pocket so it worked out. as far as Im concerned, Ottke should have at least 4 or 5 losses on his record.

[Mintcar923]

I am certain it was Dempsey he molded his style on initially, I will happily be corrected though.

Besides that's not even relevant, you rate a fighter based on resume and what they achieved primarily. Rocky falls short in these categories compared to other fighters.

Ranking fighters by mixing head to head ability/skills or whatever is silly in my opinion as things like this are totally subjective. I understand resume is subjective as well but two well versed people should come to a similar conclusion when ranking fighters, or be able to justify why they ranked fighter X over fighter Y when someone else may not. However this cannot be done for Rocky and it cannot possibly be argued he had a better career than Muhammad Ali.

Yes, Mike watched tapes of Marciano and was one of the guys he molded his style after. I'm pretty sure it was in the Jose Torrez book, "Fire and Fear.."

As far as Rocky goes, let me ask you a question. Had things been reversed and Muhammad Ali been in Rocky's era and retired undefeated at 49-0 would you rate him under Marciano? Let's say Marciano came along later and won the title 3 times in the somewhat stonger Frazier, Foreman era.

I honestly can't fault a fighter for being in an era that he never wished upon
himself.

[Barn]

Yes, Mike watched tapes of Marciano and was one of the guys he molded his style after. I'm pretty sure it was in the Jose Torrez book, "Fire and Fear.."

As far as Rocky goes, let me ask you a question. Had things been reversed and Muhammad Ali been in Rocky's era and retired undefeated at 49-0 would you rate him under Marciano? Let's say Marciano came along later and won the title 3 times in the somewhat stonger Frazier, Foreman era.

I honestly can't fault a fighter for being in an era that he never wished upon
himself.

Are you implying I have an underlying agenda?

If Marciano had Muhammad Ali's career he would be #1.

I heavily dislike Muhammad Ali and I'm not a big fan of his prime style. I am a white Scottish person, I see no room for any bias on my part. I am just saying what I see and it's pretty obvious to most people.

I'm not going to fault Marciano for his era, he was 49-0 and only 12 or so of his fights were against decent fighters, he then retired early.

Muhammad Ali was 20 fights in when he beat Liston, a better fighter than anyone on Marciano's resume and fought top opposition for about 15 years.

It's a stark and obvious contrast.

[Mintcar923]

Are you implying I have an underlying agenda?

If Marciano had Muhammad Ali's career he would be #1.

I heavily dislike Muhammad Ali and I'm not a big fan of his prime style. I am a white Scottish person, I see no room for any bias on my part. I am just saying what I see and it's pretty obvious to most people.

I'm not going to fault Marciano for his era, he was 49-0 and only 12 or so of his fights were against decent fighters, he then retired early.

Muhammad Ali was 20 fights in when he beat Liston, a better fighter than anyone on Marciano's resume and fought top opposition for about 15 years.

It's a stark and obvious contrast.

So you're saying Marciano retired too early, then? I would think 49 bouts would be a pretty complete career. I don't even think there were any more fights for him that really made sense as he had completely cleaned out the division. You say only 12 opponents of his were decent. I don't quite understand why some people rate Liston up there with Marciano and other ATG's. How many decent fighters did he beat other than an undersized Patterson? As far as Ali, he was great but I think he just fought on way too long. He should have retired after Frazier III, or even Spinks 2.

[Barn]

So you're saying Marciano retired too early, then? I would think 49 bouts would be a pretty complete career. I don't even think there were any more fights for him that really made sense as he had completely cleaned out the division. You say only 12 opponents of his were decent. I don't quite understand why some people rate Liston up there with Marciano and other ATG's. How many decent fighters did he beat other than an undersized Patterson? As far as Ali, he was great but I think he just fought on way too long. He should have retired after Frazier III, or even Spinks 2.

49 bouts is a very complete career if you start fighting world class opposition maybe 20 fights in. However Rocky didn't.

Justifying Rocky retiring early by saying that Ali should have is just silly.

Liston here is irrelevant, you believe Marciano is greater than Ali. Why is Liston even being talked about?

Marciano is not greater than Ali no matter your criteria or they way you present your argument. It's a stone cold fact that can only be denied by a huge bias.

Just to confirm I counted 13 good wins out of 49 on Rocky's record.

Ali has several wins that are better than Rocky's best win.

[Daddy T]

49 fights is not a very short career. He also fought the best of his era and cleaned out the entire division. There was really nothing much more for him to do except maybe go 50-0. The only thing that can be expected of a champion is to defeat the best of his time. And he had done that without even a single defeat which was a feat that perhaps will never be eclipsed. I just don't understand why someone would think he doesn't deserve to be at the top. OK, so his era wasn't quite as strong as Ali's but neither was Louis', or Holmes, or the Klits etc. I guess its a matter of opinion whether to rate Louis, Ali, or Marciano at #1.

According to Don Dunphy who had called their fights for 50+ years had mentioned he thought any of those three could defeat the other on any given night. However, I give the Rock the edge over both Louis and Ali. Even though Joe was past his prime when he fought him you could see he would still be stylistically a problem for him. As far as Ali, Frazier was by far the most difficult opponent in his career. And Marciano was superior to him in every which way IMO. I don't know how accurate that computer fight of them was back in the '70's. But, it did have Rocky winning by KO.

I wouldn't be so sure about that at all, frazier was a hell of a fighter with a great resume, he was only ever blown away by foreman - who would have made mince meat of the rock too.

[SBleeder]

So you're saying Marciano retired too early, then? I would think 49 bouts would be a pretty complete career. I don't even think there were any more fights for him that really made sense as he had completely cleaned out the division. You say only 12 opponents of his were decent. I don't quite understand why some people rate Liston up there with Marciano and other ATG's. How many decent fighters did he beat other than an undersized Patterson? As far as Ali, he was great but I think he just fought on way too long. He should have retired after Frazier III, or even Spinks 2.

Are you serious?

Williams. Machen. Folley. Valdes. Are they truly not "decent"?

[lastrealfan]

I know this is going to sound crazy but if you really break down the question I would answer Roy Jones Jr. Think about it he had no defense at all he fought with his hands down arond his waist, he just had the speed and reflex's to get out of the way of punches. He had no type of jab he was just so quick he could lead with a left hook. He rarley threw a strait right hand allmost all his punches were looping or and upercut. So as far as technical skill goes he really didn't have any he just had such great physical gifts that it didn't matter.

[Japanese Boxing]

Are you implying I have an underlying agenda?

If Marciano had Muhammad Ali's career he would be #1.

I heavily dislike Muhammad Ali and I'm not a big fan of his prime style. I am a white Scottish person, I see no room for any bias on my part. I am just saying what I see and it's pretty obvious to most people.

I'm not going to fault Marciano for his era, he was 49-0 and only 12 or so of his fights were against decent fighters, he then retired early.

Muhammad Ali was 20 fights in when he beat Liston, a better fighter than anyone on Marciano's resume and fought top opposition for about 15 years.

It's a stark and obvious contrast.

Oh come the **** on.. Maybe age wise but you can't make the argument that Liston was so superior to Ezzard Charles, Joe Louis, Archie Moore, and Jersey Joe Walcott. If you said because of age, I'd agree for the most part. But thos names alone people will kill to have on their resume.

I wouldn't be so sure about that at all, frazier was a hell of a fighter with a great resume, he was only ever blown away by foreman - who would have made mince meat of the rock too.

The Rock had the stamina we know Foreman didn't. Nuff said.

I know this is going to sound crazy but if you really break down the question I would answer Roy Jones Jr. Think about it he had no defense at all he fought with his hands down arond his waist, he just had the speed and reflex's to get out of the way of punches. He had no type of jab he was just so quick he could lead with a left hook. He rarley threw a strait right hand allmost all his punches were looping or and upercut. So as far as technical skill goes he really didn't have any he just had such great physical gifts that it didn't matter.

I said this earlier, but by no means does having your hands low mean you're not using proper defense. You can always bring your hands up. Lots of the old greats kept their hands low. Baiting shots is absolutely crucial to the game of boxing. As answered to my question, he did have good footwork. He positioned himself nicely which I wouldn't deny. But I do still feel that as great as some of his skills were, he did lack in other areas.

So I agree with you to an extent. Not your reasoning though