Stanley Ketchel vs. Tony Zale

Ketchell is perhaps the strongest argument against judging early fighters based on the limited film footage.

I agree that he dosn't look impresive on film, but Tommy Burns does, and Ketchell was getting much better results vs the same opponents.

Based on the filme evidence, you would never have thought that he could have beaten Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, or make it out of the first round against Sam Langford!

Whatever Ketchelll was doing, it not only worked, but worked spectacularly!

 

I'm shocked because the footage of ketchel backs up his reputation-a crude unskilled brawler who roughed guys up before flattening them. Zale was tough but not indestructible or a clever slickster. I Zale will get caught and Ketchel is probably the hardest hitting middleweight of all time (barring ruby Robert). I give Ketchel 60/40 odds in a 15 rounder and 80/20 in a finish fight.

 

Zale had far more skill on offense and defense. On film Ketchel does not impress.

 

he, I respect your opinion, but I have given much thought to this thread as you have...I MUST stick by my assertion that you and other posters are basing your low opinion of Ketchel bases on TWO fights on film still remaining...The two worst examples of a man who was considered the best MW ever by those who saw him ko 49 fighters...Why in heaven's sake would the fighters you mention above be relevant today, when Ketchel
fighting at the same time was considered on the SAME level as a MW titan
than the great fighters you cite ? Ketchel was a pure and simple swarming slugger,with great two handed power, amazing stamina and raw courage
who swept all before him in the middleweight ranks...A boxer he wasn't,
but Stanley by all accounts of the great boxing minds of his time, was a force of nature,dangerous til the last second...How can seeing just 2 clips of Ketchel against Billy Papke,when Ketchel had battered hands and against a 40 pound heavier master boxer Jack Johnson, tell you and others that all the great writers of his age and after, who SAW him many times ringside, knew less than you or I ???
If you condemn Ketchel on the basis of two clips, than you condemn all the great fighters of his time, because as a murderous punching MW, he was considered on THEIR LEVEL..Fancy boxing or not...Cheers he.:hi:

 

That is another ball of wax..What you imply might be true or might be false M, but my contention is that in Stanley Ketchel's heyday, he was on the same level of CLASS as all the great fighters of his time irrespective of his go for broke style...Along the lines of a Gerald Mcllelan with greater stamina, and a greater chin...A TOUGH TOUGH S.O.B. to get into a ring with...
P.S. As for your assertion that the "skill level" has increased dramatically..
CONJECTURE on your part...But if true the fighters of those much harder days were tougher, fought without mouthpieces, fought with handball type gloves, were able to go 45 rounds if necessary, and fought a hell of a lot more often against the very best fighters of their times...Too bad , that today we don't have films of tough as nails Ketchel flattening his 49 opponents...Maybe then you and others, would have agreed with the
great boxing people who saw the Michigan Assassin raise holy terror in his
prime...Cheers...

 

Simple answer .. the two clips show a wild swinging fighter who resembles more of a strong man contestant than a skilled prize fighter ... sore hands or not from his footwork to his Max Baer looking round houses he looks like a man a sharp, precise combination punching fighter would beat to the punch and damage .. as far as other fighters your claim is false as I clearly stated that many old fellas would excel, Ketchel just not being one of them ...

WE go round and round on this but to me at the end of the day, be it Dempsey, Ketchel or many of your favorites you are a bit of a romantic while I take a more pragmatic approach .. from the film that exists I see a Ketchel getting his head knocked off like Graziano did in their third fight by Tony Zale ...

 

Rocky Graziano roughed up guys before dispatching them too, and an old Zale ko'ed him 2 out of 3,...I think Zale could get Ketchel too.

 

I remember the late Nat Fleischer who spoke so highly of Ketchel and other of the old timers at Ring Magazine on 31st st. N.Y. He was stopped by Johnson but not before dropping the Heavyweight champ in a kamikaze sneak attack. Stanley was had raw power but also he had skill and from what I see on film he was a tough guy at 160, lets face it Langford who many consider a great heavyweight and LB 4 LB ATG did not have it easy with Stan. I love Zale, who was one of the toughest middleweights ever but I see this Stanley coming out on top late in this Polish civil war

 

Think Zale would shade this one.

 

Mmmm...let's not go overboard and compare Graziano with Stanley Ketchel, folks. At best Graziano was a poor man's Ketchel. He circumvented practically the entire middleweight division to get an undeserved title shot against a fading (but still formidable) champion, resulting in him getting flattened in two of three bouts.

Ketchel was right in the thick of the division, beating the best there was to offer time after time. He was a more proven fighter in every way. Compare his record against top MWs to Graziano's. No comparison whatsoever. I don't even place Graziano in the same universe as Ketchel.

That being said, this is a very tough one to call. In a straight slugfest you favor Ketchel. But Tony has some boxing skills too and that murderous body attack could take a lot of the steam out of Ketchel's blows by mid-fight. Perhaps Zale could make Ketchel respect him enough to where Tony is ultimately dictating the pace from mid rounds on.

Thinking out loud here. This one is tough and I hate you for posting it....

 

And this is precisely what we disagree on. Not that the Michigan Assassin looked like a bar brawler. On the film we have he did. Its that that would prevent him from winning a fight against a modern fighter.

The evolutionary jump that took place between the turn of the century and the second world war would effect fighters and would render some of them obsolete. But the damage done would mostly be to the pioneers and technician. A brawler like Ketchel? Power speaks in any era.

When I said Ricardo Mayorga earlier I brought him up because her was every bit as.crude as Ketchel yet was for a brief spell the welterweight champion of the world knocking out Vernon Forrest a vastly more skilled fighter and winning a close decision. As for the obvious retort that Forrest us a clearly inferior fighter to Zale I agree. I would then remind the torter? that Ketchel is much better than Mayorga.

And since you brought him up... Max Baer is yet another wild puncher who enjoyed a brief reign as a world champion. He was a contemporary of Zale (their career a overlapped for the better part of a decade) and one of the decades better heavyweights. But even more impressively Baer beat the stuffing out of Max Schmeling a much better boxer who found that in some cases skill is not everything.

 

Well said LR...I, am NOT convinced by seeing two clips of Ketchel against Papke in their LAST BOUT when Ketchel had a broken bone on his hand, but still won a 20 rd decision over Papke who was rated over Zale by Nat Fleischer and others...And with the 40 pound heavier Jack Johnson...Just these TWO darn clips doesn't do justice to the tornadic like Ketchel...I have never read any contemporary account of Ketchel being clumsy..NEVER.
In my lifetime ,I have seen many great classy boxers succumb to great punching swarmers, and lose to them...Why is it so that the same posters who rightfully hold Sam Langford in such high regard, yet villify Ketchel who outweighed by Langford by 12 or more pounds, gave Langford all he could handle...? Twelve pounds lighter than Sam, Ketchel certainly held his own, and Langford always contended that Ketchel was the best "white" fighter he fought...I simply cannot believe that today's naysayers of Ketchel,
somehow 100 years later , can know MORE about Ketchel's place in history,
than so many writers and boxers who saw Walker and Robinson fight, and STILL declared the cyclonic Ketchel their superior ...They SAW Ketchel at his best ringside, whilst today's detractors of Ketchel, saw two clips of Ketchel. I'll side with the observers...
P.S. To people who call me "nostalgic", maybe so. After being a product of the 1940s Golden Age I wear that badge proudly, though still being analytical...Cheers LR...:hi:

 

Love them both, but slightly favour Zale, why I don't really know!