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

Elaborate?

 

Didn't Nat also rate Billy Papke over Ray Robinson?

 

I read in a 20s newspaper that they believed Greb to be a great MW behind Fitz and Ketchel. Not everything is about resume and allot of people decide who they think the better with their own eyes and simply by preferences

 

I agree with it. That's about all.

I'd probably rate Fitzsimmons above them both.

 

I reckon Burns would beat Ketchel personally.

 

It's interesting enough, I did a similar thread a couple of months back.

Boxing historians back then considered dempsey the best ever and I don't think many people viewed greb in that light.

Somehow over time views have changed so whether it's criteria or perspective I don't know.

I mean the top guys in the sport, imo, are fitz, greb, langford, louis, robinson, armstrong, ali, pep, charles and duran.

Now where these guys really considered as great in their times?

In another hundred years will people even remember the names of greb and langford?

How are our opinions now more worthwhile than those of yesteryear?

Even just rating the guys from back then, not including post 50.

I think I have

Fitz
Greb
Langford
Armstrong
Pep
B. Leonard
Walker
Gans
Tunney
Wilde

 

Luf, the further you go in time, from the actual time these fighters fought ,the less accurate are there true abilities...We all know how a story we tell ,change
considerably over the years,that it is hardly recognizable from the ACTUAL EVENT. So with fighters long ago such as Stanley Ketchel, Barbados Joe Walcott,etc....I have been reading boxing history since I was a pup, and men who for example saw Ketchel fight, and were still alive in the early 1940s,
raved about the cyclone that was Ketchel, unanimously...They saw him after all,saw all the fighters after him, and were still in awe of him...We [some of us],today after seeing two film snippets of Ketchel, the last fight with Billy Papke, in which Ketchel hurt bones in his right hand,and of course,the farcial fight with the large, powerful HEAVYWEIGHT Jack Johnson in 1909,8 months before his tragic death. From this we cull the abilities of the Michigan Assassin, who kod 49 out of 64 fights, fighters such as Phil Jack O'Brien,
Billy Papke, Mike and Jack Sullivan,Joe Thomas, Hugo Kelly,and so many others of that tough, tough era. If today, doubters of Stanley Ketchel were to see films of all these knockouts Ketchel accumulated , I am positive these naysayers,would today also rave about Stanley as highly as all the men who actually SAW Ketchel FIGHT...For a small example : I saw the great Beau Jack
fight in his prime,against Bob Montgomery, Ike Williams,Allie Stolz,Al[Bummy] Davis etc. While I missed Beau Jack whip Henry Armstrong at MSG,
Beau Jack's,true greatness is forgotten today, because time ERODES,and one or two films shown today doesn't come close to indicate how good a fighter
Beau Jack truly was at his best...And so with Stanley Ketchel...
What is the old adage? : "one swallow, does not make a spring".It's the whole body of work that counts...And so with Stanley Ketchel...

 

Burt, as always, a great read :good The part I've highlighted is something is something I hold my hands up to; despite my knowledge of Ketchel, I do usually base my opinions on the Papke fight, which is a horrible scrap.

 

Nat had his share of favorites, and Ketchel was one of them. Some of the time did not consider Greb to be a truly great fighter, even tough he was. The reason? He bent the rules with fouls. Not saying it was true or not. Just what I have read.

Ketcehl looks awful on his two filmed fights. Perhaps the most over rated old timer based on film in his prime.

 

Seconded.

 

No Surf : I have Fleischers list of middleweights in front of me :
Stanley Ketchel
Tommy Ryan
Harry Greb
Mickey Walker
Ray Robinson
Frank Klaus
Billy Papke
Les Darcy
Mike gibbons
Jeff Smith
But as I have posted ,before Fleischers death he wrote that Harry Greb was No#1...This list is from Fifty Years At Ringside, by Nat Fleischer. Cheers S..

 

I have that one and quite a few of the other Fleischer boxer bios and actually , often see him contradicting himself in the same book ... it has long been a frustrating experience and why I rarely go out of my way to read any of his others ...

 

Terrific post.