Ketchel over rated by old timers

[BKM-]

It sounded like he was a bigger Greb.

[Willie Pep 229]

Its interesting, we have hardly any film on him to judge by. We have the Johnson fight, which was pitting him against the top HW in the world in a fight that wouldn't even be sanctioned any time in the last century. Then we have him wrestling around with a thonged Billy Papke. Not much to judge by. Its easy to be wary of all the praise he received by the media, as we know there was a tendency to build fighters up and 'purple prose' and all. And of course there are a lot of fights from that time that just seem to be very rudimentary, though that was just how the style was at the time.
Since his career ended so early, his resume is mostly early career fights vs no-hopers and young fighters. But he has a good number of solid wins: 3 of 4 vs Papke, a couple against Jack O'Brien, the twin Sullivans.

I think this ends up being somewhat of a Rorschach Test on how one views the era in a lot of ways. Forme, I think he comes off as a worthy HOF level fighter, with a top level ability to knock someone out, though probably real open to being picked apart by some fighters.

There is no doubt they wrote in 'purple prose' about everything during that period, politics, scandals, murders, and of course boxing.

But just to give them a little space, and excuse, those sports writers often had something we don't have, the emotional, edgy, experience of live anticipation and its outcome.

If they over-wrote on a fighter or fight, some of the hyperbole may have come from the excitment of the live experience.

For example: Take the Leonard-Benetiz fight. The night I watched it I couldn't move from the edge of my seat. The were like two cobra, that danced and feinted eachother. The tension was palpable.

You watch that fight now, after the fact, and it is not an exciting fight to watch, almost nothing happens.

The same failure happens when we look back at these old fights on film, we only can share some of their experience.

Does anyone 25 years old today look at Tyson-Douglas with the same awe that a 65 year old who saw it live?

The 25 year old missed the experience, so he views us 'ole timers as romantics because he didn't live it.

Here lies the rub. Too many think one finds legacy in resumé, or by the brilliance of some self proclamined claim of visual expertise. Nonsense.

They will never know the whole story about Tyson; with Ketchel we will never know the whole story.

Maybe there was something special one felt when Ketchel climbed throw the ropes, and excitemnt, an anticipation, something you didn't feel with others. E.g. Tyson's ring walks are legendary. Tyson Fury's are a clown act. For which one today is rhe ring walk part of that man's legacy?

Who knows what it was really like wjen Ketchel walked to the ring.

That is legacy. What the man is thought of in his own time, is his legacy.

Stanley Ketchel was an ATG because they said so. It is not our place here, now, to be prove or disprove. Either embrace or don't.

Proceeding generations preserved his legendary acts for us, not because they found him middling, but because they wanted us to embrace him as something special, as they did. That's the man's legacy. He's an ATG!

Maybe the resumé and color-line boys can't find this 'greatness' in Ketchel's resumé, or he doesn't pass their 'eye test,' but the man moved people for a some reason, a reason we will never be able to totally share in.

Claiming someone's "legacy" is overrated. Is a very silly statement. That issue was put to a vote by the people who lived it.

P.S. Also of course it always helps to die young. Big 'legacy' adavantage there. Especially when your demise comes in the second best possible way to die young.

[DeeMoney]

There is no doubt they wrote in 'purple prose' about everything during that period, politics, scandals, murders, and of course boxing.

But just to give them a little space, and excuse, those sports writers often had something we don't have, the emotional, edgy, experience of live anticipation and its outcome.

If they over-wrote on a fighter or fight, some of the hyperbole may have come from the excitment of the live experience.

For example: Take the Leonard-Benetiz fight. The night I watched it I couldn't move from the edge of my seat. The were like two cobra, that danced and feinted eachother. The tension was palpable.

You watch that fight now, after the fact, and it is not an exciting fight to watch, almost nothing happens.

The same failure happens when we look back at these old fights on film, we only can share some of their experience.

Does anyone 25 years old today look at Tyson-Douglas with the same awe that a 65 year old who saw it live?

The 25 year old missed the experience, so he views us 'ole timers as romantics because he didn't live it.

Here lies the rub. Too many think one finds legacy in resumé, or by the brilliance of some self proclamined claim of visual expertise. Nonsense.

They will never know the whole story about Tyson; with Ketchel we will never know the whole story.

Maybe there was something special one felt when Ketchel climbed throw the ropes, and excitemnt, an anticipation, something you didn't feel with others. E.g. Tyson's ring walks are legendary. Tyson Fury's are a clown act. For which one today is rhe ring walk part of that man's legacy?

Who knows what it was really like wjen Ketchel walked to the ring.

That is legacy. What the man is thought of in his own time, is his legacy.

Stanley Ketchel was an ATG because they said so. It is not our place here, now, to be prove or disprove. Either embrace or don't.

Proceeding generations preserved his legendary acts for us, not because they found him middling, but because they wanted us to embrace him as something special, as they did. That's the man's legacy. He's an ATG!

Maybe the resumé and color-line boys can't find this 'greatness' in Ketchel's resumé, or he doesn't pass their 'eye test,' but the man moved people for a some reason, a reason we will never be able to totally share in.

Claiming someone's "legacy" is overrated. Is a very silly statement. That issue was put to a vote by the people who lived it.

P.S. Also of course it always helps to die young. Big 'legacy' adavantage there. Especially when your demise comes in the second best possible way to die young.

First off, let me reiterate that I too view Ketchel as an all time great. That being written, there are some questions I have to your logic.

You wrote, "Stanley Ketchel was an ATG because they said so." this seems to imply that there is no second guessing of previous opinions about how people felt about things during their time frame. If so, I disagree. It is possible for someone to be wrong about things within their time frame, and its possible for us to evaluate opinions of the past and possible state that they are wrong. We can contextualize, and understand the historiography of various opinions, but to say that, 'people within a given time felt a certain way about something within that time, ergo their opinion is correct' is wrong. This seems to be an especially odd opinion to hold on a history board, where the discussions will tend to focus on opinions of historical figures- your logic seems to state that we can not have opinions that differ from those in the past here- just accept it. If this is not what you meant, I'd be interested in what the quoted sentence actually means.

You additionally wrote, "Maybe the resumé and color-line boys can't find this 'greatness' in Ketchel's resumé, or he doesn't pass their 'eye test,'..." this seems to imply that you realize there are various measures of greatness, and maybe that word means something different to someone else than you. Maybe they are using a different criteria. To not acknowledge that is to turn a blind eye to the possibility that this could be an 'apples to oranges' situation. Your definition of greatness is that he was once viewed as great, but what if someone elses view is if their in ring production places them as one of the top 10 to have ever done it. These are two different forms of measurement, but you seem to claim only one point is valid.

As an aside, I feel that Purple Prose was more prominent in sports media at the time as they were selling heroes to an audience who most likely would never actually view the events-more similar to the dime store novels of the time than the yellow journalism that Pulitzer was doing. Pulitzer had showed that tearing down people and selling smut would work, but sports stars for the most part hadn't reached that level yet- so the best way to sell sports was to sell heroes.

[Willow The Wisp]

Well, here's me going off again.
I always find amusement when people speak as if having access to more film will out do the opinion of history writing observers, and that reading isn't of any use (beware the opinion of Those folks, always; and about any topic Lol).

I'm thinking here.....that people might be overestimating the use they'd make of such film footage.


But let's test my theory:

We have PLENTY of footage of both Usyk and Dubois. A whopping 4 weeks to study that footage. We even have the enormous advantage of film footage of them already fighting!

Usyk vs Dubois II. - who wins?

With the magic delivered by the studious consumption of all that film, viewed by the trained eye of an expert, an unimpeachable answer is obtainable. Or so goes the presented theorem.


Wins over the likes of Philadelphia Jack O'Brian, Jack & Mike "Twin" Sullivan, Hugo Kelly, Billy Papke, Joe Thomas, Willie Lewis, etc, and we see a strong body of work having occurred. If the guy who did that work "looks like a wide open limited figther with next to no footwork and no defense"; it is safe to say that something does not add up.

And reason suggests that the something is you.

There's yet another way to determine things. Consult your real experts. The ones with real credentials.
The IBRO ranks Ketchel #6 all-time.
The Ring Magazine staff ranks Ketchel #8 all-time. Ring Founder Nat Fleischer had him # 1.

It is very unusual to find Ketchel ranked outside of the top 10 in a division that was made for the "average" sized man (160 weigh-in and 170-185 walking around), which boasts some 75,264 professionals in the modern era, sacrificing everything for a chance to climb into that top 10.

Maybe he IS "overrated". Maybe some of those historians became a little misty-eyed longing for the old days or Ketchel's early departure from this mortal coil.
Maybe the components of criteria differ between how we go about assigning "greatness".

But I'm not quite dumb enough, or self-absorbed enough, to believe that My personal interpretation of footage shot with a 1910 Bell & Howell Standard movie camera instantly should override the conclusions of 115 years worth of expert observation and opinion, just because I think it should.

[Willow The Wisp]

There is no doubt they wrote in 'purple prose' about everything during that period, politics, scandals, murders, and of course boxing.

But just to give them a little space, and excuse, those sports writers often had something we don't have, the emotional, edgy, experience of live anticipation and its outcome.

If they over-wrote on a fighter or fight, some of the hyperbole may have come from the excitment of the live experience.

For example: Take the Leonard-Benetiz fight. The night I watched it I couldn't move from the edge of my seat. The were like two cobra, that danced and feinted eachother. The tension was palpable.

You watch that fight now, after the fact, and it is not an exciting fight to watch, almost nothing happens.

The same failure happens when we look back at these old fights on film, we only can share some of their experience.

Does anyone 25 years old today look at Tyson-Douglas with the same awe that a 65 year old who saw it live?

The 25 year old missed the experience, so he views us 'ole timers as romantics because he didn't live it.

Here lies the rub. Too many think one finds legacy in resumé, or by the brilliance of some self proclamined claim of visual expertise. Nonsense.

They will never know the whole story about Tyson; with Ketchel we will never know the whole story.

Maybe there was something special one felt when Ketchel climbed throw the ropes, and excitemnt, an anticipation, something you didn't feel with others. E.g. Tyson's ring walks are legendary. Tyson Fury's are a clown act. For which one today is rhe ring walk part of that man's legacy?

Who knows what it was really like wjen Ketchel walked to the ring.

That is legacy. What the man is thought of in his own time, is his legacy.

Stanley Ketchel was an ATG because they said so. It is not our place here, now, to be prove or disprove. Either embrace or don't.

Proceeding generations preserved his legendary acts for us, not because they found him middling, but because they wanted us to embrace him as something special, as they did. That's the man's legacy. He's an ATG!

Maybe the resumé and color-line boys can't find this 'greatness' in Ketchel's resumé, or he doesn't pass their 'eye test,' but the man moved people for a some reason, a reason we will never be able to totally share in.

Claiming someone's "legacy" is overrated. Is a very silly statement. That issue was put to a vote by the people who lived it.

P.S. Also of course it always helps to die young. Big 'legacy' adavantage there. Especially when your demise comes in the second best possible way to die young.

Brilliant post.

[Willow The Wisp]

Some great thoughts expressed on this thread. I appreciate that.

Nobody asked (Gee, they never do!),
......But that never stops me.


My All-Time Middleweights Modern Era

1. Sam Langford
2. Harry Greb
3. Sugar Ray Robinson
4. Carlos Monzon
5. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler
6. Stanley Ketchel
7. Bob Fitzsimmons
8. Marcel Cerdan
9. "Sugar" Ray Leonard
10. Roy Jones Jr.
11.Mickey Walker
12.Mike Gibbons
13.Bernard Hopkins
14.Jack “The Nonpareil” Dempsey
15 Gennadiy Golovkin
16.Jake LaMotta
17.Freddie Steel
18.Thomas Hearns
19.Tiger Flowers
20.Tony Zale
21.Charley Burley
22.Tommy Ryan
23.Marcel Thil
24.Charles "Kid" McCoy
25.Georges Carpentier
26.Rocky Graziano
27.Jeff Smith
28.**** Tiger
29.Roberto Duran
30.Mike McCallum
31.Billy Papke
32.Gene Fullmer
33.Holman Williams
34.Mike O’Dowd
35.Les Darcy
36.Eddie McGootry
37.Emile Griffith
38.Saul "Canelo" Alvarez
39.Eddie Booker
40.Frank Klaus
41.Al Hostak
42.Buck Crouse
43.Georgie Abrams
44.Lou Brouillard
45.Jimmy Clabby
46.Leo Houck
47.Vince Dundee
48.Rodrigo Valdez
50.Teddy Yarosz
51.Nino Benvenuti
52.Joey Giardello
53.James Toney
54.Ken Overlin
55.Al McCoy
56.Carmen Basilio
57."Bad" Benny Briscoe
58.Sergio Martinez
59.Laszlo Papp
60.Mike O'Dowd
61.Julian Jackson
62.George Chip
63.Lloyd Marshall
64.Carl "Bobo" Olsen
65.Ceferino Garcia
66.Fred Apostoli
67.Gustav Scholz
68.Kelly Pavlik
69.Michael Nunn
70.Randy Turpin
71.Charles Humez
72.Chris Eubank
73.Sumbu Kalambay
74.Nigel Benn
75.Johnny Wilson
76.Alan Minter
77.Ace Hudkins
78.Gerald McClellan
79.Paul Pender
80.Arthur Abraham
81.Robert Villemain
82.Ronald "Winky" Wright
83.Jermall Charlo
84.Vito Antuofermo
85.Rene DeVos
86.Jack Chase
87.Hugo Corro
88.Terry Downs
89.Holly Mims
90.Miguel Cotto
91.Dave Sands
92.Hugo Kelly
93.Jock "Rochdale Thunderbolt" McAvoy
94."Cyclone" Johnny Thompson
95.Dave Shade
95.George Benton
97.Clarence Alabama Kid
98."Allentown" Joe Gans
99.Young Ahearn
100.Mike Donovan
101.Jermain Taylor
102.Ben "Belter" Brown
103.Steve Collins
104.Denny "Bulldog" Harrington
105.Leo Lomski
106.John "The Beast" Mugabi
107.Frank Moody
108.William "Gorilla" Jones
109.Kenny Watkins
110.George Rooke
111.Evelio "Kid" Turnero
112.Frank Battaglia
113.Johnny Howard
114.John David Jackson
115.Frankie Schoell
116.Elsworth "Spider" Webb
117.Joey Archer
118.Steve Belloise
119.Antonio Fernandez
120.Billy Soose
121.Mustafa Hamsho
122.Eduardo Lausse
123.Ignasio Ara
124.Ruben "Hurricane" Carter
125.Jean Claude Bouttier
126.Edward McGlinchey
127.Percey "Pal" Reed
128.Rory Calhoun
129.Ben Jeby
130.Cyrille Delannoit
131.Ralph "Tiger" Jones
132.Rocky Castellani
133.Bobby Boyd
134.Jackie Clark
135.Bobby "Boogaloo" Watts
136.Herol "Bomber" Graham
137.Jock Malone
138.Laurent Dauthuille
139.Bert Lytell
140.Charley Joseph
141.Floentino Fernandez
142.Tiberio Mitri
143.Juan Domingo Roldan
144.Yama Bahama
145.Willie "The Worm" Monroe
146.Tony Mundine Sr.
147.Fred Henneberry
148.Willis "Shorty" Hogue
149.Solly Krieger
150.Reggie Johnson
151.Jack Hood
152.Gratien Tonna
153.Babe Risko
154.Felix Sturm
155.Kell Brook
156.Paul Pirrone
157.William Joppy
158.**** Turpin
159.Tony Sibson
160.Luis Folledo
161."Sugar" Ray Seales
162.Dwight Davidson
163.Tom Bogs
164.Carmen Barth
165.Sam Soliman
166.Keith Holmes
167.Tony Licata
168.Daniel Jacobs
169.Ossie Stewart
170.Salvatore Affinito
171.Lamar Parks
172.Artie Townie
173.Gene "Silent" Hairston
174.Daniel Geale
175.Miguel de Oliveira
176.Curtis Parker
177.Young Terry
178."Dangerous" Don Lee
179.Meyer Grace
180.Joe "Bolo" Blackwood
181.Al Trainor
182.Rosy Baker
183.Marco Antonio Rubio
184.Howard Eastman
185.Mel "Killer" Brown
186.Gomeo Brennan
187.Walter Cartier
188.Eugene "Cyclone" Hart
189.Wilford Scypion
190.Joe Carter
191.Nasim Max Cohen
192.Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.
193.Atilio Sabatino
191.William "Caveman" Lee
192.Jackie Burke
193.Hacine Cherifi
194.Harry Balsamo
195.Jorge Castro
196.David Lemieux
197.Grzegorz Proksa
198.Johnny Rossi
199.Martin Murray
200.Kid Leonard

A case for top 200 exists:

**Erich Seelig
**Michael Watson
**Hassan N'Dam N'Jikam
**Sammy Slaughter
**Sebastian Zbik
**Norman Conrad
**Al Webster
**Jorge Basora
**Enzo Fiermonte
**Kevin Finnegan
**Coley Welch
**Milford "Sweed" Berglund
**Frank "The Animal" Fletcher
**Jean Despeaux
**Fulgencio Obelmejias
**Frank Goosby
**Jim Sullivan
**Gus Campbell
**James Shuler
**Al Trulmans
**Rafael Gutierrez
**Jimmy Smith
**Ralph Chong
**Speedy Sparks
**Gus Christie
**Tom Lancaster

[Mr Mitts]

I like your list. No reason for Ho'kins to be any higher--but maybe lower.

[them_apples]

>>> In his surving films Ketchel looks like a wide open limited figther with next to no footwork and no defense. He film is very disappointing. And his is Ketchel in his prime. His resume of wins major wins is rather thin.

you need to understand boxing is not just about form and aesthetics.

some of these old fighters were mean, driven individuals with a lot of trickery and finesse, even if wild and rugged in style.

Ketchel, grew up hard, living like a vagabond. he's gonna be a lot meaner and rougher than anyone who walking this earth right now. it was just a different time. People didn't quit back then, and not just in the fight, this resonates in training as well.

He had some interesting moves. the one he attempted on johnson (the one that missed but Johnson faked to justify him icing Ketchel) was a move where he pulls his right side back to generate torque on a massive left hook.

Yes it is a wild shot. you don't see it anymore, but he would throw it out of knowhere and knock guys cold.

[Bronson66]

I can see the ***** ass cantankerous slutitude is still strong here. It's okay, Hawk Hogan is coming to show the way.


Old ****ers taking words on a screen seriously. Little to nothing else in any given thread.


Ignorant kunts arguing with equally ignorant kunts over transitive ideals given to them by those who profit from perspective.


Perspective.


I give mad perspective in my text y'all

I get mad props at my mentions because I vex y'all.

You tell em M!

[mattdonnellon]

hellofa list! pssss Jeff Clarke?