Fans For Stanley Ketchel

That is a big call to be honest. It is possible, but top 3 places him in the company of Greb, Fitzsimmons, Hagler, Robinson and Monzon.

I find this debateable. He obviously had lethal power and despite splitting the series with Papke in what really was Ali Frazier type series, it seems, he may have been the best middleweight of the time. But he also may not have been in the class of Sam Langford it seems. From what i have read, it seems that Langford probably beat Ketchell in their match, although it also seems that there was agreements to carry Ketchell, and i dont think that sort of an agreement really does Ketchell too much justice. He doesnt seem the type to look good in exhibitions, but seems to be at his best when he can hit his opponent hard and often.

A Ketchell Langford fight would have told us a lot about both. Langford did seem to struggle more with the smaller and more mobile guys. And as i understand, by this time would have really struggled to make the middleweight limit (although i think Stanley too was really no longer a middleweight by this time) and i am fairly sure that he was going to campain as a heavyweight in any future fights (if any).

I only raise this Langford fight, because if Ketchell were indeed not a better middleweight than Langford (who could easily be top 3-6 himself), then i dont really see how Ketchell could also be ranked in the same position. I guess the flip side is that if he did beat Langford or you consider him better than Langford, then it is probably not as far fetched to put him there as it first seems.

And from a review of peers standpoint, Ketchell definitely seems to have the respect for his power. It is almost a jack Dempsey style enigma with Ketchell.

 

As you say, his era was absolutely stacked.

This is a factor that often gets lost.

 

Top 4 at least ,and a genuine nutter if half of what we read is true.
Wilson Mizner said so anyway.

 

I really wish I knew more about Ketchel's comp. Sadly, i remain ignorant.

 

--now that's good news. Lemme know too.

 

I've read that Langford came into his fight against Ketchel upward toward, or even more, than 170 pounds. Even if he was an actual Middleweight in their fight, I may still rate Ketchel higher at the weight due to the particulars of each man's career. Ketchel was a career middleweight, Langford just kind of stepped through the division on his way up.

 

I've said this before in other posts about Ketchel and it bears repeating (I guess). Ketchel was a head case and his style is downright crude and ugly...but he did things that win fights. (Papke fight)He totally dictates the distance the fight is fought with his footwork, never ever lets his back touch the ropes against one of the most rugged middles of that era, according to reports was quicker with the shift than Fitzsimmons, suffocating inside fighter (there is some semblance to what Duran did to Palomino with angles and totally negating an opponent's return fire inside), used a strong step jab to the body. The style is ugly...but there is alot going on in there. Stanley may have been crazy...but from the Papke film he was a thinking fighter who maximized his skill set. When I watch the film that's what I see...Great fighter? You better believe it.
Addendum: One more thing watch how he fought out of a moving crouch for those twenty rounds...Try this for 2 rounds in your living room shadow boxing and tell me how your legs feel. Incredible stamina and leg strength to the list.

 

He weighed in above the light heavy limit, didnt he?

If my memory serves correct, i think he stated that his middleweight days were over, shortly before his death, and he was going to campain as a heavyweight.

 

M, Ketchel in most of his career fought ar 154-56 pounds. He was always a true middleweight. Sam Langford ,when he fought Ketchel in 1910, was
About 12-14 pounds heavier than the slighter Ketchel. Big handicap for a
Ketchel, who was by that time a jaded fighter,nearing the end of his career.
Six short months later Ketchel while recuperating from a probable physical
breakdown was resting in the home of a friend's ranch in Conway, Missouri,
was shot and killed by Walter Dipley.
Langford at that time at 27 years old,
was morphing into a heavyweight in 1910.His build was short [5ft8"],but very broad....
I think that it was a feather in Ketchels cap, and his dissipating lifestyle
[opium ?], and much lighter than Langford, to have held his own, with the
bigger Boston Tar Baby....
Aside from Ketchels 20 round fight in 1909,when Stanley hurt or broke a bone in his hand, and the debacle with the 40-5 pound heavier Jack Johnson in 1910, there are no film of this cyclone puncher who flattened FORTY NINE out
of 64 fights. For todays posters to pass judgement on Ketchel,from 2 bouts,
and ignoring the forty nine ko's, some great fighters included, is foolish.
Stanley may well have been our topo middleweight mano, mano...

 

Ketchel was better than fitzsimmons at 160

 

Strong statement BB...

 

What is the most brutal knockout Ketchel has ever scored?

I heard he was one of the greatest punchers ever