Stanley Ketchel vs. Matthew Sadd Muhammad

Now, under fairer rules (i.e more punching than clinching) it's a closer fight.

The constant clinching in an old-rules fight will see Saad even more depleted after 12 rounds or so, and he will surely get stopped.

But he could really whack, and was super resilient. We all know Ketchel had a good chin but Saad could punch, box and most importantly, tough it out to give Ketchel all he can take in the exchanges. Plus, will the years of increased punching form help Saad to hurt Ketchel? Just a thought.

Under a mixed ruleset (clinching, but not to an excessive degree, 15 rounds and each guy gets to use their own equipment) it's a body good fight; any intepretation is fair, but even as a massive fan of Miracle Matthew, Ketchel may be one of the guys to get to him in his prime and stop him pulling it out of the bag.

But I wouldn't want to really make a pick; I can't make a stylistic analysis based on the fact that it would inevitably end up a war, and then its just down to who you think can stick it out.

 

I think the fact that Ketchel was fighting under his rules might be decisive.

This is one thing that we overlook in fantasy fights.

Would you honestly throw Bernard Hopkins in with Bob Fitzsimmons under Fitzsimmons rules (or vice versa) without a few tester fights to see what was going to happen?

 

Good point. However, clinching is one thing but ugly mauling is another.

 

stanley Ketchell,vs mathew sadd muhammed, a war in the ring between the most ferocious,middleweight of alltime,Ketchell,against a dead game,rugged light heavy mathew sadd....Stanley ketchell, by all accounts was a cruel two handed puncher,in his prime, able to go 20 to 40 rounds, and maintain his knockout power....Though only a middleweight, he ko,d phil jack o"brien , great light heavyweight champ, who outweighed Kethell, by about 15 lbs., in 1909. Ketchell, hit with such power, he was able to drop, the 205 Jack Johnson with a glancing blow to the head, before,Johnson kod Stanley in the 12th round....I picture the Michigan Assassan, as a superior Gerald Mclellan,with more power, and endurance...Ketchell, in his prime years,1905 to 1910 only lost twice,once to Billy Papke,in 1908, when shaking hands , in the first round,Papke shot a sneak right hand on Stanley,s chin, dazing Ketchell, for the rest of the bout, untilKetchell was finally stopped in the 12th round...Ketchell avenged his unfair loss, two months later, by koing Papke... Then his KO at the hands of the great Jack Johnson... Ketchell Kod 49 opponents in 64 fights...Unfortunatly, the only film we have of Ketchell, was with Johnson, and with Billy Papke in 1909, when Ketchell broke his hand or hands, winning a 20 round fight against Papke...Can't judge Ketchell by that fight...No sir... I admired Mathew Sadd, for gameness and toughness, and though , he was larger then Ketchell, I feel Ketchell had too much firing power.... Ketchell by late stoppage in a war.....

 

I agree we need to see a Ketchel fight besides the Jonhson fight ( where he looks horrible ) and the Papke fight where he broke his hand.

I see Ketchel as a crude but powerfull middle weight puncher. I think Sadd Muhammad skills would be too much here.

 

A great fantasy fight ... who knows ... Ketchel likely had enough power to stop the vey hittable Saad but could he take Saad's lethal power ? Saad hit light years harder than O'Brien who was a master boxer but not a puncher in Saad's class ... I would favor Saad as the bigger man but who knows ?

 

It speaks so highly of Stanley Ketchell,s legacy, that he Ketchell, at about 154 lbs, at his peak, would be even matched against the real tough very hard punchingMathew Sadd, at 175 lbs. Sadd at that weight would KO Ray Robinson. Hagler. Monzon,all great but 160 pounders....Maybe because the historians, who saw the"Michigan Assassan"', in his prime, were on to something.......

 

I'll go with a prime-time 1978 / '79 version of a ripped 175 pound Saad Muhammad to pound out a late TKO win over a 1909 Stan Ketchel in a time machine....... Saad Muhammad was no slouch and his conditioning was also insane, muck like Ketchel's was for his era... Saad Muhammad had underrated boxing skills, and that would be the key here against the brawling Ketchel.... Stan Ketchel was strong for a middleweight, but he was not physically stronger than a prime Saad Muhammad......... I see Saad Muhammad at 175 rock hard pounds hammering a 160+ pounds Stan Ketchel into submission by late round TKO...........

MR.BILL:rasta:bbb:happy:thumbsup

 

Of course Ketchel is himself the strongest argument against judging fantasy fights by how good the fighters look on film.

Both Tommy Burns and Jack O'Brien look to be a generation ahead of him and you would assume that they would both beat him easily if all you had were films of them.

Of course Ketchel beat O'Brien and did better vs common oponents than Burns.

Now if we were matching Sadd Muhammed against Burns then a lot more people would give Burns the nod.

 

I would not bet against Stanley