Where does Stanley Ketchel rate all time at 160?

No 5?

 

Norman Stanley Fletcher?

 

I just don't see it guys .. I get the portrait but only see a Graziano type wild man .. I'll give him power, heart, chin and stamina but man do his skills look primitive .. to me when anyone is painting a portrait of how unsophisticated boxing was you can look at this guy ..

 

I agree he was rather crude but unlike Graziano he did beat top middles and didn't feast on welterweights. Stan carried his power all through a fight, he was a force of nature.If he had replaced Graziano in his time frame he would have squared off with Lamotta.Graziano was never going to do that.

 

Look I know Graziano is a legend of sorts but if you study his record it is astonishing to learn just how pathetic his opposition was .. 90 percent of the guys he fought had losing records .. then he smacks out a few welters and takes on Zale which shows me how much Zale was busted up at that age coming into the fight ..

 

i agree with that view, but i would add that it's based off not much footage, one fight where his only chance was landing a big punch and might be a pantomime anyway, and one fight that was a rematch and i don't think you get the whole story when you only see a rematch.

for the most part he does do a good job of nullifying papke on the inside

 

I agree about Graziano and I agree that Ketchel looks crude but if you dig into his record and the context of the times, especially that year or two where he was discovered and cleaned up the division, its really very impressive what he did. Youd have to have a real firm grasp on his opposition to tell just how good he was but I think he was one of those guys that might have done really well in spite of his crudeness because of his other assets.

 

I thought that is what I had just finished saying?:huh

Graziano does not make my top25 160pounders.
The only reason the Zale trilogy was so good is because Zale was past prime.

Are you on the drink HE?

 

I have him in the top 30.

 

Frank "The Animal" Fletcher.

Anthony "Two-Gun" Fletcher had him slighty behind Monzon.

 

Ya knocking out Mike and then Jack Twin Sullivan, winning that MW tourny with Papke, Thomas, and Kelly and topping it off with two wins over Philly Jack including a KO was a hell of a run.

As for the crudeness Papke IV was regarded as being dreadful by writers at the time who saw the first three and who looks good against Mr.Octopus Johnson especially if you're a MW?

I used to regard Ketchel and roughly 1911-16 as being the critical years when boxers started going from fighting old timey to modern with guys like Tunney, Gibbons, Leonard, O'Dowd but watching the clip of Papke vs Carpantier in 1917 changed my mind. An older Papke is much more refined and reasonably modern, far more than i thought previously when the fourth fight against Ketchel is all i had seen.

Edit - holy ish it used to only be the 17th round now there's a 20 min version.