Rating him is obviously very challenging, we have film too watch, but he looks pretty bad, that being said I think we can all agree that films of his best performances don’t exist, you basically have a tough, mean, violent son of a ***** who quite possibly had one of the hardest right hands in the history of the division and the stamina to go 40 rounds.... imo, H2H he has a punchers chance against anybody ever at middleweight... but ranking him all time... I’d say maybe top 20. He’s a pioneer, a legend, a tough guy, but he’s also a crude brawler with a hard punch , so yeah, top 20 for me
Papke definitely wasn't terrible and didn't look bad on the tape at all. He had unusual style that relied heavily on inside game with a lot of clinching, but it doesn't mean that he couldn't beat more modern styles. Carpentier had much more modern style and Papke took him out of action in their fight: This content is protected
So Papke doesn't look bad on tape - really? I'm aware, that back then boxing was very different from today - with much more emphasis on infighting. And if being able to outmuscle and outbrawl your opponent on the inside, was what impressed people at the time - well, then I can understand, why greatness was seen in fighters like Ketchel and Papke. However, seen with modern eyes (which may be unfair), I find it difficult to understand, how anyone can think they look good (in the sense of having more than just the most rudimentary boxing skills, besides their inside game) in the footage we have of them. On the contrary, they look quite terrible, imo. But then again, as already said, this may not be quite fair to them! They were the best of their time - and more than that, we can't really ask for. It's just that boxing back then had yet to evolve into what we today would consider "modern".
Ketchell was a great fighter. His last bout was against Langford. I read that Langford won the early rounds but Ketchell came on later in the10 round bout and was pummeling Langford. They were supposed to fight for a a 15 rounder later but Ketchell was killed before it happened.
Their only meeting was a 6 round no decision bout. Anything I’ve ever read on it was that Langford easily contained him, just to preserve a promised title shot, but Water Dipley ended all of that.
Ketchel was a terror in his era. Based on that he's certainly top 10. I know Sam Langford didn't view Stanley as a slouch. They had a 6 round exhibition. Ask later if he carried Ketchel Sam said no. Admitted he couldn't take him out. Considering who Sam Langford was that tells us Stanley was the goods.
He didn't fight like modern boxers do, but it doesn't mean that he couldn't fight. Have you seen him against Carpentier?
Yes I have. Fought almost exclusively on the inside, with lots of pushing and mauling. I have no doubt, that as a physically strong man, Papke was excellent at this. And if this is what it took to be considered a great boxer back then - yes, then he was a fine fighter.
