Is Stanley Ketchel underrated?

I would have to think on this. I don’t know that he is underrated, especially in regards to the posters on this forum that rate fairly across the eras. But he does seem to be under appreciated, under discussed and maybe even largely unknown to some more modern classicists (is that a real word?)

 

I wish he had fought Sam Langford earlier in his career, or maybe have fought Fitzsimmons (though he'd be old at this point).

His wins against Jack O'Brien and Papke really stand out, and we all know about his fight against Johnson. Imo he's slightly underrated but he's also been overshadowed by the likes of Greb and Hagler.

 

Today he probably is a bit.

 

I really have trouble rating him very highly. He was a fighter of his era. He looks crude to me in the films of the Johnson and Papke fights, and I have trouble picturing how advanced training and techniques would improve him as a fighter in more modern times. I am open to being convinced, however. He has always been a puzzle to me.

 

Like Salvador Sanchez all those years later he just died too young. Had he lived on and made a bigger impact on the era, more would know his name.

The story of the Jack Johnson fight is great too...how he sucker punched Jack and got his teeth knocked out for his trouble.

 

Over rated. Film is awful.

 

On film he doesn't look good - in fact, he looks terrible.

If anything, he's probably overrated today!

 

Fast dangerous guys like Robinson, walker, cerdan, zale would have absoultley destroyed him.....no doubt

 

What do ya think? If we should have a Super HW division and a HW division, why can’t we have a classic forum for people who appreciate classic boxers and another for those that hate them lol

 

Why does it matter, what reporters wrote almost a century ago? You are very knowledgeable, and have watched 10 times more boxing than anyone in 1925 - so you should be richly qualified to form your own opinion. And judging from what we have of him on film, it's only too obvious, that Ketchel really wasn't all that good!

 

I doubt, if there are posters here who actually hate the classic boxers. Why would they?

Those who don't believe, that boxers from 100+ years ago were superior to today's fighters... could they not just be expressing their honest opinion? Without any hatered being involved?