Charley Rose and Nat Fliesieisiiecher both ranked Ketchel above Greb at MW

Nat also rated Jack Johnson as the best lb-4-lb he'd ever seen(and he saw a few) so i'm inclined to not hold his word as gospel.

I always think Greb may have even been underrated for his time, i'd say because of his lack of hitting power. Everything i read from the era seems to praise Leonard and Dempsey more, and i'd say praise of Greb, Walker, and the Gibbonses is nigh equal.

 

Fleischer's a hard guy for me to figure out. On one hand he comes out and says of the 6-round fight between Ketchel and Langford that he thinks Langford would win in a real contest of a longer length, and then I have a handwritten note from him to a fellow in which he say's that he'd pick Ketchel to knock Langford out. In that same note he picks Ketchel to knockout Bob Fitzsimmons, Hank Armstrong, Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, and Harry Greb, but then picks Jack Dempsey to knock Ketchel out.

 

By the way, that note from Fleischer was from 1953.

 

when you've seen or somehow been a part of so many great and excellent fighters, you will cotradict yourself and of course not always be on the money

- but the bulk of the Fleischers of boxing are justifiably sound!

 

Ketchel is so underrated. Their was a thread a few months ago and half the forum was picking tommy burns to beat Ketchel. That gave me a good laugh.

 

I consider Fleischers all time lists, etc to be on par with Jim Corbetts predictions on fighters. Corbett was great at what he did but when it came to predicted fights or the future success of a fighter he was a legendary failure. Fleischer was a great ambassador of the sport, prolific, and entertaining. But his history is sub par at best, his list are sometimes strange and often contradictory, and many of the stories he tells in relation to both fighters and himself simply arent true. I dont know if Fleischer was making it up as he went along sometimes, or playing to a certain demographic (which he has been accused of in the past), or if he simply got confused (as can happen when you do nothing but focus on boxing for long years) as the fights and fighters started to blend together. What I find off about some of Fleischers lists is that, particularly in regard to Ketchel, he could have only seen Ketchel at most a handful of times. AT MOST and thats being generous. Greb had 300 fights and Fleischer maybe saw 20 of those, MAYBE, and the majority of those would have been after Greb was past his prime. I just dont think you can get an accurate picture of the totality of Greb's body of work until you sit back and look at the big picture. That was very hard if not impossible in Fleischers day. Combine that with the fact that when start comparing all of these great fights (particularly the early ones) that Fleischer was supposedly at with the story of his life you start seeing that sometimes Fleischer would have either had to have been in two places at once, or simply wasnt there. It really damages his credibility a lot of times. Obviously the guy saw a ton of fights, and lots of the great ones, but sometimes I think he injected himself into fights (like I said, early on) that he simply was not at in order to beef up his resume a bit.

 

I think that would be a hell of a fight. Tommy Burns is far more underrated than Ketchel.

 

I was watching the Burns-Obrien fight last night and despite that being a horrible fight due to Obrien Burns is really impressive. Hes clever, defensively adept, and very accurate even against a guy who is literally doing everything he can to avoid fighting. Its interesting that Obrien fought Ketchel tooth and nail, went even up with Johnson, yet was scared shitless of Burns.

 

It was the one where O'Brien wouldnt fight Burns unless Burns agreed that he wouldnt go for the KO. When the walked up to shake hands Burns said "deals off" and Obrien spent the next twenty runs running for his life. Even so, Burns looks pretty damn good and pretty modern. When he lands Jacks head looks like a bobble and when Jack lands Burns doesnt even flinch.

 

I have Nat Fleischer's RARE biography of Stanley Ketchel entitled, "The Michigan Assassin"
printed in 1945. He raved about "Steve", Ketchels nickname,and was with Ketchel quite often when Ketchel was training in his training camp in Van Cortland Park,in the upper Bronx, NY.He mentions in his old bio that Ketchel predicted he would "die, before he reached the age of 30", and Ketchel was correct, as he killed at age 24..He called Ketchel
the "greatest" middleweight of all time in the book and in the Ring Magazine for many years after the 1945 book... But not long before Fleischer passed away, in his "question box",column in a response to a question "who was the greatest middleweight of all-time "
Fleischer answered HARRY GREB..Go figure ???

 

From what I've read and from comparing records (I know Ketchel died young) Greb is miles in front. I actually think Ketchel is quite over rated when it comes to all time middleweight lists.

 

Compare there common opposition and you will see a landslide in favor of Ketchel. Ketchel was knocking men out cold who were beating or going dead even with Burns.