I saw some footage of him and he didn't really seem impressive to me. Was he just known for being a great puncher? How skilled was he?
I think he was mainly known as a wild swinging slugger who engaged in vicious wars, particularly his foul filled battles against Billy Papke, and didn't seem afraid of anyone. His record is good, 51 -7 and he fought some tough fighters of the time, who are perhaps forgotten. I suspect his technique would be easy to exploit by modern champs but his heart and fearlessness would be hard to top.
Here is a good article about him. This content is protected Seems like the film we have of him are not the best representations of him, a bit like Jimmy Wilde and many of these old timers.
He was one of the greatest middleweights of all time. He had a murderer's row of a "division" (things were looser then - he took on slightly bigger guys also) to deal with, pretty much dominated except for that disaster against Papke, who was himself a borderline great fighter. I rank Ketchel the fifth greatest Middleweight of all time, top 30 all time pound-for-pound.
I have been either competing in, watching or reading about boxing for 40 years now and I just can't wrap my head around this guy. He looks so horrible on film. The fighter I see could be ripped about by a Dana Rosenblatt level fighter. I know he created a good story and that we have to adjust for eras but I have never been able to swallow him being ranked so high.
I think he was just a super hard puncher and tough as shoe leather, two things that don't really come across on film. I mean there have plenty of fighters with awful styles who succeeded through raw physical attributes. Also the film we have is against Papke and Johnson, two of the toughest SOBs in history. He was outweighed by 50 pounds against Jack and his fourth match vs Papke was seen, even at the time, as a poor performance by Stan. Not saying I disagree with you but I think what you say could be applied to many champs from that era with limited footage. I mean I don't think he looks significantly worse than Johnson on film, they have a similar low hands style, just Stan has a much worse defence!
Agree wholeheartedly, I have said as much on numerous posts over the last couple of years, also that I believe all the MW champs from say 1930 onwards would beat him handily, even most contenders would have a 50/50 chance, he is the classic case of contemporary writers and opponents heaping unjustified praise on a current fighter, the nickname, the gun he carried, the flaming red cars, the disdain for authority, the maverick, they all stoked the fire of his mystique, the reality was infinitely different. stay safe buddy.
Interesting article discussing if the Johnson vs Ketchel fight was a sham or not. If they were play acting, at least until the 12th round, it explains the rather poor performance of Johnson. If they were not as the article suggests then Johnson may well have had some difficulty with Stanley. This content is protected
