24. But his career was really punishing, he had a lot of long wars from a young age and fought often, plus I think he started doing opium. He didn't have a lot left.
O'Brien was 32 years old and at the tail end of his career. He hadnt won a fight that went over 6 rounds in three years. It was widely considered that Langford carried Ketchel in order to get the more lucrative longer bout in California. Not sure why you think Ketchel was giving up weight. No weights were announced and Langford could weigh in the 150s during this period. Irregardless Greb was a naturally bigger man than Ketchel as well. Neither of the Sullivan brothers were anything special. When Ketchel fought them they were both 30 years old. Mike was a natural welterweight. Hugo Kelly was nothing special either. None of these guys, at the time Ketchel fought them, where on the same level as the men I mentioned above and none of them were anywhere near the class of Greb. With the possible exception of Langford and he beat Ketchel without trying. I just dont think Ketchel ever showed a level of dominance over anyone approaching Greb's quality. Quite the contrary in fact which leads me to believe Greb beats him. Thats aside from the fact that Greb's attributes totally offset Ketchel's best traits. Ketchel was known to be fast, hard hitting, and have good stamina. Greb was considered one of the fastest middleweights in history and his stamina is considered second to none in the division. Combined with the fact that Greb had remarkable defense and incredible durability and recuperative powers, was very strong, smart, and threw far more punches than his opponents I just dont see how Ketchel is going to beat him. Does he go inside where Greb's greater strength and size and incredible inside game come into play? Does he stay outside and try to time the incredibly fast and slippery Greb with big shots? I see both as a recipe for disaster for Ketchel. Knowing what we know about both fighters I think its a horrible matchup for Ketchel. I think short of a million to one punch that lays Greb out cold hes out of luck.
When he died he was very young but he was by his own accounts and those who knew him a physical wreck. In his last interview before he died he talks about being plagued by terrible headaches from the knockout he suffered at Johnson's hands and says he hadnt been right since that fight. He had been in other punishing wars as well, was living the night life very hard, had been in several scrapes with the law, and was supposedly addicted to opium. His plan was to retire to Missouri, buy land and open a ranch there where he could work, live a quiet life, and recuperate. In less than a year before he died in four fights he had won what many considered a gift over Papke, lost to Johnson by brutal KO, lost to Klaus (and wound up in the hospital after that fight), and lost to Langford. While on the east coast he was caught up in a scandal where he was trying to fix fiights and wouldnt appear unless the opponent agreed to lay down. None of this is the hallmark of a guy in his prime. Like I said, above and beyond the fact that the division was about to boil over in talent it had never seen before Ketchels issues with his health and personal life would have posed a big enough challenge to overcome but that combined with all of the great fighters about to emerge and I think the writing would have been on the wall for him. Part of the reason hes remembered as he is today is because he died so young and people and posit what he would have done had he lived. I dont think he would have accomplished much more. Its kinda like if Tyson died after the second Ruddock fight. Yeah he lost to Douglas but people pretty much assumed he would win a rematch and had he died after Ruddock the unknown would have made him appear more legendary than what we eventually found out about him. Ketchel was very similar in that regard. Meteoric rise during a weak, transitional period in the division, headline catching KOs, short prime, wild life, its the same blueprint.
When Ketchell fought Langford it was reported that Langford won the early rounds but Ketchell was beating him up after round 6. It was only a 10 round bout. They were supposed to fight again in a Super Fight contest but unfortunately Stanley was killed.
Greb is faster, better skilled, and probably had the better chin. Here's the thing, his style gives Ketchel a chance to land. I'd pick Greb via 10th round TKO. Ketchel simply has little defense, and does not impress at all on film.
You write like you have read something about the bout, but obviously you are making things up. The bout was only six rounds long, so the rounds in which you say Ketchel was beating him never happened.
Good post, I pick Harry too.I don't put any stock in the Langford v Ketchel bout,I think Sam was ."under wraps."looking for a pay day down the road. Reports suggest Mizner paid a couple of Ketchel's later opponents to not give of their best,Ketchel was certainly on the way out as a top liner when he was killed.
You can have a trilogy without a loss, Look at Charles Moore I don't think Fitzsimmons loses in 3 fights to Greb
