Judging by what you have seen on film and read about where do you rate Ketchel? Theres many that have him in there top 10 as we have all read.
I have just watched him on film that last two nights, but going off that I don't really know. I try not 2 put 2 much stock in records, moreso in what I can see on film, although sometimes it's undeniable (like Greb). As for myself though, I would say Ketchel was a middleweight great, not a top 10, but still a good one, based on his record alone.
Top 10 is too high for him IMO, the men he beat do not impress me to that degree. He also looks like absolute **** on film. I'd pick quite a large number of middleweights to beat him based on the footage we have (although I appreciate that they're may be situations around both fights; one against a heavyweight, the other a poor performance where he used a different style) but I still don't think he'd go from looking like someone who's never boxed to a complete master. Teddy Yarosz and Frank Klaus should both be rated above him IMO.
I think people should respect the pioneers of the sport. But in terms of his skills, he was poor. Clinched constantly. When he wasn't, he stood straight up with his hands down. Never jabbed. Telegraphed his shots. No combinations. No guard. I wouldn't pick Ketchel to beat most middleweight champs and beltholders of the last 70 years. Seriously. He was a pioneer of the sport. His place is secure. But, he is not a fighter who would stand much of a chance against the fighters who came later.
That's a really fair response. I am shocked at how bad he looks on film and the footage I have seen of his rival, Billy Papke, shows an equal level of what we would say nowadays is ineptitude. We can't judge fighters of that era the same as we judge more modern counterparts. The sport was evolving. Fighters had trainers who had never fought, there was no video to learn from, travel was not as commonplace so fighters fought the same opponent multiple times and sparred with much the same pool of fighters. Advocates of the old timers talk fondly of how men like Ketchel trained in a brothel, drinking and going with prostitutes and chuckle at the man's toughness that he was able to prevail despite such a lifestyle. But leaving the romance aside, it's highly doubtful that such a lifestyle benefitted their performances. I've only just stopped short of saying 'utterly impossible' instead of 'highly doubtful'. In reality, no amount of hardship-induced toughness can compensate for what modern fighters have had - access to experienced trainers, the benefit of learning from the evolution of the sport, video helping teach/learn an immense array of new techniques, travel to fight or spar with a much wider array of opponents and sparring partners, diet, amateur clubs giving the opportunity to have competition from an early age etc. By modern, I mean 1940s, 50s so on when all of the above advantages started to kick in and there was a really wide talent pool who had been boxing since childhood with an amateur career which helped them develop their skills, a lot of gyms, fight nights so they could fight and develop. That's patently not the case now as the popularity of boxing has diminished and the talent pool and access to learning and practice has shrunk accordingly. Ketchel was what he was. A tough man for his era whose reputation rests on the chronicles of local writers who had experienced very little else themselves. Of course they were in awe of his toughness but they'd scarcely seen any other fighters other than those from their states or neighbouring states. Their exalted reviews have to be taken with some degree of a pinch of salt when you put them into the context of where these writers formed their opinions. When we do have film which, despite the terrible quality, at least provides some subjective basis on which to judge, Ketchel fails the eye test for me. But we still talk about him over 100 years on, even though he only lived to 24 so he obviously did a lot to make the sport boom. Whatever we might think of his technique (or lack of), us modern fans owe him a debt for helping to launch the sport.
Unfair to criticize the technique of pre-20s fighters compared to their more modern counterparts. The Walker Law in 1920 was the paradigm shift in boxing history. Obviously there’s a lot of overlapping fighters in this period, so I typically just consider those who were actually in their primes post-20s as being “modern”. That transition continued into the 40s when the sport was, in my opinion, fully modernized. In an all inclusive list, he’d rank pretty high for having such a short career and early death. One of the best of the live fast, die young club. Sanchez, Darcy, Villa, Ohba, and co.
Stanley Ketchell was known for his punching power more than for being a boxing stylist, so I am not surprised that he doesn't look that good in fight films. - Chuck Johnston
Yes, true, but being a powerful puncher will only get you so far before lack of technique should form an insurmountable barrier to progress. Also, punching power does depend to an extent on technique and skill; it's not all just a God-given gift. Arguably, the most lauded power puncher of modern times - Thomas Hearns - only realised his natural gift for power once he had developed his technique. And many of the other noted power punchers of recent times, even the crudest among them, all exhibit technique that seems to me to be light years on from what I see in film of Ketchel. The likes of McClellan, Jackson, Duran, GGG, Benn, Trinidad all seem so much more fluid and balanced. I don't know if it is down to the poor quality footage of the early 1900s; I can only form an opinion based on what I see and I see a sport practised at such a different level as to be almost unrecognisable. But, as I say, fair play to him because whatever he did, 110 years on we're still talking about him so he must have done something right in his short time at the top.
