Stanley Ketchel

Effective yes, but still looked awful - which was my argument.

 

Well, to me most recent HWs look awful, but I'd never have it against them.

 

What I mean is, that I think it takes more than just physical strengt to compete today.

Case in point: Calzaghe vs Lacy. Lacy was much, much stronger, and hit much harder than the puny-looking Welshman... yet it was Cal who completely dominated, because he brought other things to the table than just caveman strength.

As good as he was in his own era, could Papke beat recent top middleweights, with nothing more than his old-time infighting skills? I doubt it.

 

In light of this topic It's interesting that Greb, who is looked upon as being crude by many, defeated Tunney (Possibly multiple times), who is considered by many to have a modern style. Not only did Tunney have this style 'advantage', he had all the physical advantages and was an ATG to boot.

 

I don't view his infighting skills as nothing more than "caveman strength". Have you ever fought against someone who could grapple?

 

"Caveman" may be a bit harsh!

But if what we see on film, is all he got... I'm sorry, I just can't be impressed.

 

Because his techniques are impossible to replace with modern gloves, but they were legit with small ones. You look at these things like modern standards are perfect in absolute sense, when with more capability of grappling a lot of modern techniques would be significanltly less effective.

 

I see boxing back then as still trying to change from the bareknuckle era. Those guys were fully evolved bareknuckle boxers, not gloved. Most of the techniques you see from guys in the 1930s and onwards require at least some padding on the hands in order to work without accidentally inflicting a self-injury.

 

These top 10 middleweights that you rate above him --- I like to see how they would do with Ketchel out on the pavement.

 

Tellum Rodney!!!

 

One think is for sure, he (Stanley Ketchel) had a great fighting name. So does Fury.