Good solid list .maybe Langford could beat them all? I don't like Giardello outside the top 15 either.
To tell you the truth I'm not fully satisfied wih my list. I'm pretty sure about top 5 but lower I feel doubt. Any help from you guys?
Agreed. Ketchel is over rated. He does not belong up there with Greb, Fitzsimmons, Hagler, Monzon, or Robinson.
Mendoza, since I know your into historians opinions..both Nat Fleischer and Charley Rose rated Ketchel as the # 1 middleweight of all time, and the hardest hitter.
People who saw him fight were always very very impressed. I think youmissed this story q, you might enjoy it: http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=202537
1. Harry Greb 2. Carlos Monzon 3. Sugar Ray Robinson 4. Marvin Hagler 5. Bernard Hopkins 6. Charley Burley 7. Bob Fitzimmons 8. Jake LaMotta 9. Tiger Flowers 10. Mickey Walker 11. Les Darcy 12. Dick Tiger 13. Stanley Ketchel 14. Emile Griffith 15. Marcel Cerdan
SuzieQ, Nat Fleischer said Rocky was 8th best at heavyweight in the late 1960's, well before Holmes, Tyson, Holy, Lewis et al. Do you agree? Old Historians who thought highly of Ketchel did not live out to see Monzon, Hagler, Jones, and others. Here's how rate old time fighters. When there is no film, I value historians opinions a bit more. If there is film of a guy in his prime or near prime, then I trust my own eyes. In this case Ketchel is in two films. Both take place in his prime. Ketchel looks awful in both, crude on offense, has little conventional defense, and looks physically non-imposing. If you review Ketchel's resume, its full of ham an egger's from his Montana Days, with a 0-2-1 record vs a no name in Maurice Thompson. While Ketchel does have a nice wins over Papke, he was also TKO'd by Papke. O'Brien was at the tail end of his career when Ketchel Ko'd him. A news draw with Klaus does not impress ( if you think Ketchel was a top 5 ATG ), and everything I read said Langford got the better in a 6 round match. Ketchel is in huge need of a good filmed performance. I fail to see this dynamic wild man in the ring, at least on film.
15 Joey Giardello 14 Kid McCoy 13 Nino Benvenuti 12 Tony Zale 11 Marcel Cerdan 10 Roy Jones 9 Jack Dempsey 8 Harry Greb 7 Marvin Hagler 6 Bernard Hopkins 5 Mickey Walker 4 Charley Burley 3 Stanley Ketchel 2 Ray Robinson 1 Carlos Monzon
Not true. In a poll of old-time boxing men conducted by John McCallum in 1975, Ketchel ranked as the #1 All-Time Middleweight. Also The Ring magazine rated Ketchel the # 4 all time middleweight in their 1996 All Time Divisional Ratings, among the 20 greatest fighters of the 20th century in 2000, and # 6 among the 100 greatest punchers of all time in 2003. The IBRO (International Boxing Research Organization) rated Ketchel the # 3 all time middleweight in our 2005 member poll. Here are a few snidbits from Monte Cox's article The Feb. 27, 1909 Tacoma Daily Ledger stated, “Ketchel is much faster than Fitzsimmons in his prime. Ketchel isn't a clever blocker, like Fitzsimmons. He fights wide open. But his continual shifting and his swift punching make him a bad target to hit.” Nat Fleischer said “One of the greatest fighters of my time. All stone and ice concentration when he entered the ring. The moment he entered his eyes were the eyes of a killer. Ketchel scorned the word retreat. A demon of the roped square he made his opponents think that all the furies in Hades had been turned loose on them. He got his punches away from all angles. If he missed with one hand, he would nail him with the other. He was game as a bulldog and tough as a bronco.” Historian Mike Silver wrote, “His strategy was simple and direct: Hit the opponent as hard and as fast as you can with as many punches as possible and from every conceivable angle…His punches awed both spectators and opponents alike. He varied his attack to the head and body, as did most of the fighters of his generation. But he was more effective at long range than at close quarters because he needed to get momentum into his hardest shots.” Nicholson, author of A Man Among Men (Jim Jeffries), wrote of Ketchel, "Stanley's right hand was devastating, and equally conclusive was his left hook, which he sometimes threw with a `shift,' starting with a right and then unloading the other hand with tremendous full-weight force." Of recent historians Max Kellerman on Friday Nights Boxing in 2003 called Ketchel "The hardest hitter who ever lived". Well there is no film of Stanley Ketchel at his best, so its hard to draw conclusions. The 4th Papke fight was a farce by both fighters, not to mention Stanley broke his hand early. You cannot gauge Stanley's style based on this fight. The Johnson fight was a fiasco, but at least Stanley displayed his power in that fight. Name me a Middleweight who floored a 205lb ATG heavyweight Champion with 1 punch? Johnson could not even get up on the first try. This is probably the hardest single punch a middleweight has ever recorded on film. It was also full of outstanding fighters. Like... Mike Twin Sullivan. Welterweight Champion of the world. Sullivan held the great joe gans to a draw. Ketchel flattened him in 1. Jack Twin Sullivan. Top Middleweight Contender. Sullivan beat Tommy Burns, whom you regard highly. He also took Jeff Clark to a Draw. Ketchel knocked out sullivan. Hugo Kelly- Contender. Defeated Undefeated Mike Schreck, beat a young Philadephia Jack O Brien twice, and fought Tommy Burn to a draw 3x. Ketchel literally wasted Kelly in 3 short rounds. No one had ever done that before. Joe Thomas- One of the bigger punchers of the era. Holds wins over the highly regarded Harry Lewis and Honey Mellody. Engaged Stanley in supposedly one of the biggest slugfests in the decade's history with Stanley winning in the 32nd rounds. Stanley also beat him 2 other times. These men are Legit World Class middleweights. Give respect where respect his due. Ketchel also fought a durable 200lb heavyweight named Dan Porky Flynn. Ketchel blasted him away faster than anyone except Dempsey. According to the Boston Globe, "Ketchel showed great speed and hitting power to knock out Flynn" I would have to say your talking out of your arse. After Ketchel defeated O'brien, O'brien went on to give Jack Johnson 6 rounds of hell in a world title fight. So O'Brien clearly had a lot more left in the tank than you imply. Ketchel beat O'brien just 2 years after Tommy Burns did. Hardly a wide gap. Bottom line is that Stanley Ketchel TWICE knocked out cold a HOF master boxer in O brien(something burns failed to do in 45 rounds). Prior to the stoppage, O'Brien had not been knocked out in a good 7 years and 100 fights. Ketchel holds 3 wins over a Hall of Fame Middleweight in his prime. How many other middleweights in history can boast this? So thoughtful of you to bring this up. Did you forget to mention Papke hit Stanley with an ILLEGAL sucker punch to the THROAT while shaking hands in the center of the ring? I am sure that didn't have any effect on stanley's performance. I mean a punch like that can only kill someone. :roll: Klaus holds wins over hall of famers Jack Dillon, Billy Papke, and Georges Carpentiers. It certainly should impress. Langford is also viewed as one of the greatest HEAVYWEIGHTS of all time, and outweighed Stanley by at least 10lb in this fight. The fact that Stanley was highly competitive going toe to toe with one of the greatest fighters who ever lived, who also happened to have a clear cut weight advantage, should increase Stanley's legacy. Langford said "Ketchel was the greatest white fighter i ever fought". He also said Stanley hit like a "Mule". That he could knock you dead. Don't you think Jeffries or Fitzsimmons are in huge need of a good filmed performance? All I hear from you is how destructive these guys were. Yet when I look at the films, I see Fitz getting his ass kicked by Bill Squires, and Jeffries getting toyed with by Jack Johnson. You depict Jeffries and Fitz as these all time greats with these legendary knockouts, and marvel what the historians say about them.....yet when it comes to ketchel you completley neglect his best performances, you neglect what famous historians have to say about him, and instead choose to ultra critisize him thru grainy film of him nowhere near his best. Double Standards. Perhaps if you decided to actually pay attention you would find I rated him 7th on my all time middleweight list. FYI 7th does not classify into top 5.
You could make the same claim about LaMotta losing to fighters Tiger "would've whipped." In the end, LaMotta's style was much more favorable to Tiger than vice versa. Yet between the two, LaMotta is the one who was outbulled/outhustled by other fighters, like Robert Villemain (twice, in most people's eyes) and Bob Murphy; whereas Tiger was never outslugged by anyone since appearing on the world class stage, even up at LHW and into his '40s. Many of LaMotta's notable wins were also against blown up welters/ natural jr. middles, whereas Tiger had more consistent success against legitimate big, strong MWs and LHWs.
Both were esentialy welterweights. Dempsey was under the welterweight limit for most of his fights, but was dominating essentialy a junior middleweight division. If you accept that the division that he dominated was a middleweight division, then he has a case for a top slot. Ryan was the bigger man but his main body of work was at welter. As a welterweight Ryan is snaping at the heels of SRL. He dominated a deep era. At middlewight he beat some good names but I would hesitate to put him in my top 15.