This isn't a question of greatness, it's a question of talent. In my mind Ketchel was quite similar to Benn, he pretended to bob and weave and slip punches but in reality he was quite happy to take a punch if it meant he could land one. As a face first brawler Benn ran into Eubank and couldn't handle the accurate hard punches that came his way. How does Ketchel face against Simply The Best. Does he lose the same way, or is he just as prone but only if the boxer is more talented (McCallum, Gibbons, Toney, Hopkins or even Hagler) How does this pan out.
I like Eubank to take a decision win...Eubank often fought to the level of the opponent, but the aggressive Ketchel would play into his hands in a modern shoot out. But here is a thought, what if more grappling was allowed, as in Ketchel's day? This type of fight would be grueling... What if the fight was over 20 rounds? Ketchel was durable he would probably be there at the end.
To all you "doubters" of the ability of Stanley Ketchel on this site, BASED on ONE film of Ketchel in his forth bout with Billy Papke, when it was revealed later on Stanley was delving into opium and other vices, so much so he soon after had to try to recuperate on the farm of his friend Col. ****inson in Missouri, where he was fatally shot 1 year after the Papke fight. I say this to you. What if somehow films were found today of the 49 kos Ketchel racked up in his great career and you saw this "true" version of the Michigan Assassin who so impressed all the great boxing writers of his day, that til the day these boxing writers died they "saw no other than Ketchel", it was said. Nat Fleischer who knew Ketchel well and saw his fights always called the Michigan Assassin the greatest MW he had ever seen, until near the end of Fleischers long life, Nat chose Harry Greb to beat Ketchel in a fight...My point is this to evaluate Ketchel by one filmed bout against a tough Papke would be akin to someone today to judge a Ray Robinson by one film of him remaining getting badly whipped by Ralph Tiger Jones. Not a fair way to judge a fighter of the past. Remember the old adage " one swallow does not make a spring "..
I don't think anyone should doubt his power, that's not an issue for me at all. The issue is his defensive prowess and whether or not he could avoid what was coming back at him. I chose Eubank because Benn was in the same situation an offensive beast with undoibtsble power who came up against someone who was too accurate for his lack of defence.
Strong fighters with a good chin and a bit of ability would absolutely crush him, imo. Eubank falls into this category, I believe. Can you imagine Ketchel trying to out-strong **** Tiger? I don't think he would do very well. Same with Hagler. And does anyone here think, he would survive more than a couple of rounds against Golovkin? I certainly don't!
I do think I agree with you. He seemed to rely on his ability to force a brawl and outgun the opponent. His loss to Papke suggests he can himself get outgunned. I feel like his offensive ****nal is one of the best but his defence is one of the worst. I see him like a black and white version of Nigel Benn tbh.
