Both were brutal fighters with huge punching power, but I think Ketchel is tougher, with better stamina and probably better power, too. I think Ketchel would win by knockout in around 8-10.
Greb can outlast him, but that's about it. He's got a huge size advantage over Greb, but equal speed, and frightening power with a killer instinct to match it. McClellan was a much larger man boiled down into the body he boxed with.
I favour Ketchel, he was even for a great HW like Johnson very dangerous, Jack said that Stanley was one of the hardest punchers he ever faced (and Johnson faced many big and strong HW´s), Ketchel had the better resume, KO´d better opponents during his short career, McClellan KO´d only the very overrated Mugabi and the LMW Jackson, who had a glass chin... Ketchel KO 8 McClellan
Yeah but compare that to the resumes of hagler, monzon and hopkins and it looks like ****. Joppy and kieth holmes were two of the top middleweights of thier era, hopkins gets no credit for beating them, while ketchel gets praised for beating guys with journeyman records, go figure. I dont know why Ketchel is considered a top 10 middleweight, michael nunn honestly had a better title run than he did. Hell, james toney beat nunn, mccallum and reggie johnson at middleweight, he should be ranked higher than ketchel too.
Dave Krieg Who the hell cares how many black fighters Ketchel faced. How many Irish or Jewish fighters did McClellan face? As for boxing being in its infancy, it had actually been around in one form or another since the early 1700's. Do you really think that these skills suddenly came into existence in your lifetime? When a fight can go 20, 30, 50 rounds and last most of the day, you develop different skills. Don't knock it till you've tried it. You did get one thing right though. Since there's little film of Ketchel, no one can really say whether he beats McClellan or not.
Have to agree with littleguy, its not the first time you've brought this up Dave. That to me sez you have some issues.
