Stanley Ketchel cleaned house in 1908

I was fully erect by the end of that.

No cuddling.

I await your second piece.

 

Good stuff Matt, thanks :good

 

Nice work senor!:good

 

Mc,A great article U have written about Stanley Ketchel,the cyclonic Michigan Assassin. You deserve kudos for bringing to light young Ketchel ,whom it was said by Hype Igoe,"once you have seen Stanley Ketchel, there is no others ".
Looking forward to the next chapter. :good

 

Nice article.

I rate Stanley Ketchel right up there with the greatest middleweights of all-time, and the greatest pound-for-pound of all-time.
He beat a terrific crop of middleweights.

It's a shame there's no film of him at his best. He was out of his depth against Johnson, and on the Papke fight footage he's none too impressive.

 

He didn't clean Langford nor Young Peter Jackson whom were both near his weight during that time. Ketchell lost a 6 rounds newspaper decision to Langford 2 years later , no rematch either.

 

F, let's not be carried away with innuendos.First of all when Ketchel fought Langford in Philly ,the fight was declared ND. There is pro and con as to who won.Over my many years I have read that both deserved the decision ,but Ketchel was more aggressive in the bout.Was Langford holding back ? Who truly knows.. But lest we forget Sam langford,growing fast was about TWELVE pounds heavier than the 154-6 pound Ketchel ! So we are really talking about a middleweight [up to 158 lbs then] and a light heavyweight, stocky Sam Langford. Think Marvin Hagler against light heavy Jimmy Bivens,who resembled Langford in built, and possibly in ability... Quite a handicap for
Stanley Ketchel, methinks...

 

Ketchel-Langford is pretty split at ringside opinion. I think the general consensus is that it was a pretty disappointing fight overall no matter how you spin it, although I think Langford won it.

 

S,you are correct it was 50/50 as to had won a decision.
But ,honestly speaking, any middleweight who spots a Sam Langford,about
12 pounds, and more than holds his own,truly is at least the victor. This Stanley Ketchel was the Evel Knevel of boxing. Good man to have with you in a bar fight,I say !

 

Great work ! We need more articles like that !

 

Stanley Ketchel is so underrated. Throw out the IV Papke fight, which sadly is the only film available. I heard both guys just showed up and waltzed for 20 rounds, almost like a staged fight with neither going all out. If film of Stanley in his prime ever emerged, you would see an Assassin. One of the greatest punchers of all time. We saw a glimpse of his one punch power against the 6'2 210lb Jack Johnson in round 12. Amazing article.

 

I think that´s a good comparison...

 

I thoroughly enjoyed that read. You began it very well with a twist and the ending is dramatic without being melodramatic.

From what I've seen and noted about Ketchel before your article, he did not do wonders for the era in terms of technique. You've begun my personal conversion with your treatment of Jack Sullivan's own conversion. His introduction to Ketchel was at first disdainful (like mine), but by fight's end, his disdain was literally beaten out of him (like mine was figuratively).

 

I think Ketchel was something of a Mayorga, a man with essentially a street fighting style adapted to the ring. His style is based on his fundamental strengths- sledgehammer fists, great stamina, and surprising speed- a slugger who fought with the pace of a a swarmer(the opposite of Marciano). Sounds crude, but as a style its difficult to effectively take to the world level because of how physically taxing(and dangerous!) it is. It takes special physical talents, including a great beard.

Technique wise he does not offer much, but it seems that he excelled greatly in two pretty important things: punching with great follow through from many angles, and shifting very well to get into position. And i think he did both without much formal schooling.