Top 15 middleweights of all time. Whats yours? [Archive]

View Full Version : Top 15 middleweights of all time. Whats yours?

SuzieQ49

04-05-2010, 11:23 PM

Well..for the time being, I have decided to abandon the Corrie Sanders threads, since it upset a few Vitali fans. So I have decided to make better use of my time and put together a top 15 middleweight list of all time. Nothing like a good old friendly debate about a widely opinionated subject.

H2h, Accomplishments, Historical Signifigance.

1. Harry Greb
2. Marvin Hagler
3. Carlos Monzon
4. Sugar Ray Robinson
5. Bernard Hopkins
6. Charley Burley
7. Stanley Ketchel
8. Dick Tiger- I love him
9. Lloyd Marshall
10. Jake Lamotta- I love him
11. Holman Williams
12. Mickey Walker
13. Bob Fitzsimmons
14. Roy Jones jr
15. Marcel Cerdan

HM: Eddie Booker, Freddie Steele, Ezzard Charles.

What a deep weight class. I know I am leaving some names out. Honestly after my first 5... 6-15 can be pretty much arranged in any order. so much depth.

WhataRock

04-05-2010, 11:38 PM

1. Harry Greb
2. Carlos Monzon
3. Marvin Hagler
4. Ray Robinson
5. Stanley Ketchel
6. Bernard Hopkins
7. Dick Tiger
8. Bob Fitzsimmons
9. Charley Burley
10. Mickey Walker

This is the 10 I put in for the alltime rankings project that Rumsfield is running..It was hastily put together but I probably wouldnt have it to much different...maybe bump Fitz up a bit.

Dont know about the next 5..But ill try this one on for size.

11. Freddie Steele
12. Tiger Flowers
13. Jake Lamotta
14. Lloyd Marshall
15. Holman Williams

I rate Roy very highly H2H there...but his accomplishments just dont stack up for me.

SuzieQ49

04-05-2010, 11:43 PM

Great List.

Where do you rate Jake Lamotta? Freakish Strength, Undentable Chin, Energizer Bunny Like Stamina combined with very slick cagey defense. He fought everybody and built up a very respectable win resume.

Here is film of him in his prime

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

WhataRock

04-05-2010, 11:44 PM

I had him 13 there bruz...pretty amazing that a fighter like him cant make my 10 but it just shows how deep the division is historically.

SuzieQ49

04-05-2010, 11:49 PM

O sry! Must have missed that! Great List! very similiar to mine. I love the Freddie Seele pick. What a puncher!

SuzieQ49

04-05-2010, 11:52 PM

Another guy who could easily make the list is Ezzard Charles. He twice easily beat Charley Burley

burt bienstock

04-06-2010, 12:03 AM

SuzieQ49

04-06-2010, 12:07 AM

You like Steele over Cerdan?

WhataRock

04-06-2010, 12:29 AM

I can't see Dick Tiger beating Jake Lamotta at their best..Tiger lost to many middleweights who Lamotta would have whipped at Jake's best...As to Tiger being too "strong" for Lamotta, nonsense ...Lamotta started out fighting tough L.H.s, and was not called the"BULL" for nothing...Freddie Steele, until he fracture his sternum,with Fred Apostoli. was almost unbeatable..I would rate him higher also...Great 2 hand puncher...

I think thats a bit stern on Dick there burt.

I cant see Jake walking through guys the quality of Griffith, Giardello or Archer...Tiger lost pretty close, sometimes disputed decisions to those guys and got his revenge over a couple aswell.

Jake also dropped a few decisions at his best weight...and got a couple of gifts aswell.

PowerPuncher

04-06-2010, 03:25 AM

Not sure how anyone can include Tiger and not Griffith.

I can't believe no one has McCallum, Nunn and Toney on their lists. They have pretty impressive resumes and head to head skills

I also wonder if Zale doesnt get a little underrated

Son of Gaul

04-06-2010, 03:47 AM

Well I'm glad to see that Ketchel made it...:good

jaffay

04-06-2010, 03:52 AM

bodhi

04-06-2010, 03:55 AM

1. Greb, Monzon
2. Robinson
3. Hagler, Hopkins
4. Fitzsimmons, Walker, Tiger
5. Ryan
6. Giardello, Griffith
7. Burley, LaMotta
8. Dempsey
9. Zale, Cerdan

sweet_scientist

04-06-2010, 04:46 AM

Well I'm glad to see that Ketchel made it...:good

Are you really? I stand to be proven corrected, but Ketchel to me looks overrated, both on film AND on paper.

Can we honestly say he belongs on a middleweight list above the likes of Giardello, Fullmer, M. Gibbons, or heck even a Lausse or Rodriguez?

sweet_scientist

04-06-2010, 05:05 AM

Are you really? I stand to be proven corrected, but Ketchel to me looks overrated, both on film AND on paper.

Can we honestly say he belongs on a middleweight list above the likes of Giardello, Fullmer, M. Gibbons, or heck even a Lausse or Rodriguez?

I'm being harsh with the last couple of names there, but seriously, what makes Ketchel such a lock for middleweight top 10 lists?

His wins against Philly Jack were impressive (though O'Brien was coming towards the end of a long career) and wins against Kelly, Papke and Sullivan are nice, but I think there are many middleweights that could boast as good a resume.

ricardinho

04-06-2010, 05:07 AM

Hagler.... baby best in my lifetime

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

mcvey

04-06-2010, 05:22 AM

jaffay

04-06-2010, 05:46 AM

1 Carlos Monzon
2 Marvin Hagler
3 Harry Greb
4 Sugar Ray Robinson
5 Jake LaMotta
6 Charley Burley
7 Holman Williams
8 Bernard Hopkins
9 Mickey Walker
10 Dick Tiger
11 Stanley Ketchel
12 James Toney
13 Emile Griffith
14 Tiger Flowers
15 Tony Zale

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?

Mendoza

04-06-2010, 05:53 AM

I'm being harsh with the last couple of names there, but seriously, what makes Ketchel such a lock for middleweight top 10 lists?

His wins against Philly Jack were impressive (though O'Brien was coming towards the end of a long career) and wins against Kelly, Papke and Sullivan are nice, but I think there are many middleweights that could boast as good a resume.

Agreed. Ketchel is over rated. He does not belong up there with Greb, Fitzsimmons, Hagler, Monzon, or Robinson.

TommyV

04-06-2010, 07:47 AM

Would anyone make a case for either Ryan or Dempsey?

SuzieQ49

04-06-2010, 08:26 AM

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.

McGrain

04-06-2010, 08:29 AM

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:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Boilermaker

04-06-2010, 09:32 AM

Would anyone make a case for either Ryan or Dempsey?
Both have very good cases for top 15 positions.

bodhi

04-06-2010, 09:35 AM

Would anyone make a case for either Ryan or Dempsey?

I do. Actually I think Ryan is in my Top10, Dempsey is in my Top15. Both over Ketchel.

Drew101

04-06-2010, 12:55 PM

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

Mendoza

04-06-2010, 06:28 PM

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.

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.

TBooze

04-06-2010, 06:31 PM

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

SuzieQ49

04-06-2010, 07:07 PM

Old Historians who thought highly of Ketchel did not live out to see Monzon, Hagler, Jones, and others.

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.

In this case Ketchel in in two films. He looks awful in both, crude on offense, has little conventional defense, and looks physically non-imposing.

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".

Here's how rate old time fighter. 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.

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.

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.

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"

O'Brien was at the tail end of his career when Ketchel Ko'd him

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.

While Ketchel does have a nice wins over Papke

Ketchel holds 3 wins over a Hall of Fame Middleweight in his prime. How many other middleweights in history can boast this?

he was also TKO'd by Papke

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:

A news draw with Klaus does not impress

Klaus holds wins over hall of famers Jack Dillon, Billy Papke, and Georges Carpentiers. It certainly should impress.

and everything I read said Langford got the better in a 6 round match.

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.

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.

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.

if you think Ketchel was a top 5 ATG

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.

My2Sense

04-06-2010, 07:16 PM

I can't see Dick Tiger beating Jake Lamotta at their best..Tiger lost to many middleweights who Lamotta would have whipped at Jake's best...

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.

As to Tiger being too "strong" for Lamotta, nonsense ...Lamotta started out fighting tough L.H.s, and was not called the"BULL" for nothing...

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.

janitor

04-06-2010, 07:25 PM

Would anyone make a case for either Ryan or Dempsey?

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.

SuzieQ49

04-06-2010, 07:29 PM

In the end, LaMotta's style was much more favorable to Tiger than vice versa.

You could say the same for both really. I don't think either was stronger than the other. I don't think either had more stamina. perhaps neither had the better chin. Very even fight.

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

Lamotta was pretty much shot when he fought Bob Murphy(whom I believe he did defeat).. Lamotta really started to lose it physically and mentally after he won the title from Cerdan. His hunger was gone, he let his weight balloon again, with his style he didn't age well at all.

I would also say Lamotta was not even in his prime when he fought Villemain. Lamotta's prime was clearly during the years 1943-46. In any event.. Villemain was a tough cookie. Marcel Cerdan would not fight him.

whereas Tiger was never outslugged by anyone since appearing on the world class stage

SuzieQ49

04-06-2010, 07:41 PM

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.

Lamotta did not age well due to his style, so this cannot be held against him upon his movement into the the lightheavyweight divison while well past his prime in the 1950s. Tiger had a style more suited for longevity.

I think there win resumes are pretty close

Jake Lamotta beat

Sugar Ray Robinson- HOF ATG
Marcel Cerdan- HOF ATG
Holman Williams
Bert Lytell
Tiberio Mitri
Laurent Dauthille
Robert Villemain
Fritzie Zivic 3x- HOF
Tony Janiro
Anton Raadick
Irish Bob Murphy

Tiger beat

Gene Fullmer 2x- HOF
Joey Giardello- HOF
Nino Benvenuti- HOF
Jose Torres- 2x- HOF
Hurricane Carter
Florentino Fernandez
Spider Webb
Henry Hank
Jose Gonzales
Peter Mueller
Roger Rouse
Wilf Greaves
Holly Mimms

Also Tiger was robbed in the first Emile Griffith fight, and the Joey Archer fight.

Very Close. I would give Tiger the clear edge in quantity, with lamotta the slight edge in quality. Overall..I would probably favor Tiger's resume. Had he been given the decision in the Griffith fight, it would not even be a debate.

bodhi

04-06-2010, 07:49 PM

Lamotta did not age well due to his style, so this cannot be held against him upon his movement into the the lightheavyweight divison while well past his prime in the 1950s. Tiger had a style more suited for longevity.

I think there win resumes are pretty close

Jake Lamotta beat

Sugar Ray Robinson- HOF ATG
Marcel Cerdan- HOF ATG
Holman Williams
Bert Lytell
Tiberio Mitri
Laurent Dauthille
Robert Villemain
Fritzie Zivic 3x- HOF
Tony Janiro
Anton Raadick
Irish Bob Murphy

Tiger beat

Gene Fullmer 2x- HOF
Joey Giardello- HOF
Nino Benvenuti- HOF
Jose Torres- 2x- HOF
Hurricane Carter
Florentino Fernandez
Spider Webb
Henry Hank
Peter Mueller
Roger Rouse
Wilf Greaves
Holly Mimms

Also Tiger was robbed in the first Emile Griffith fight, and the Joey Archer fight.

Very Close. I would give Tiger the clear edge in quantity, with lamotta the slight edge in quality. Overall..I would probably favor Tiger's resume. Had he been given the decision in the Griffith fight, it would not even be a debate.

I love that you included Müller :lol:

Factor in their losses against those guys and I think Tiger comes out on top more clearly.

My2Sense

04-06-2010, 08:03 PM

You could say the same for both really.

No you couldn't. Tiger was a great inside technician/counterpuncher who was virtually unbeatable against fighters who came to him or stood in front of him. LaMotta does not have that same sort of proven track record against fighters of Tiger's style.

I don't think either was stronger than the other. I don't think either had more stamina. perhaps neither had the better chin. Very even fight.

Tiger hit much harder and had more all-around skill.

Lamotta was pretty much shot when he fought Bob Murphy(whom I believe he did defeat).. Lamotta really started to lose it physically and mentally after he won the title from Cerdan. His hunger was gone, he let his weight balloon again, with his style he didn't age well at all.

How would you describe Tiger when he was 40 years old and had terminal cancer?

In any event.. Villemain was a tough cookie.

So were guys like Gene Fullmer, Ruben Carter, Floro Fernandez, Henry Hank, Jose Gonzales, Rocky Rivero, Roger Rouse, and others, all of whom failed badly at outslugging Tiger.

SuzieQ49

04-06-2010, 08:10 PM

My2Sense, I am not going to argue with you about Dick Tiger. I am just as big a Dick Tiger fan as you are, so your stuck with that.

Tiger hit much harder and had more all-around skill.

I would say Lamotta had the slicker defense and head movement while Tiger had better technique and block ability(nice high gaurd). tiger was the much better technician on the inside, and threw sharper straighter punches. Tiger did hit harder, but Lamotta showed that he could hit harder than his record indicated and was dangerous when he played possumm. I know Tiger is possibly the strongest ever, but I feel Jake can fight in the trenches with any middleweight ever. It will be very hard for tiger to hurt lamotta or outwork him.

How would you describe Tiger when he was 40 years old and had terminal cancer?

Still good enough to beat Nino Benvenuti! Tiger is something special.

So were guys like Gene Fullmer, Ruben Carter, Floro Fernandez, Henry Hank, Jose Gonzales, Rocky Rivero, Roger Rouse, and others, all of whom failed badly at outslugging Tiger.

Absafuckinlutely!!!! Dick Tiger is one of the best of all time!

Tiger was a great inside technician/counterpuncher who was virtually unbeatable against fighters who came to him or stood in front of him

Yes Sir! Tiger is damm near impossible to beat coming into him.

LaMotta does not have that same sort of proven track record against fighters of Tiger's style.

No,

but watch the first round of the Cerdan-Lamotta fight. Cerdan, an ATG himself, both as a technician on the inside and as a puncher..gets manhandled and brutalized in close by Jake.

Mendoza

04-07-2010, 06:19 AM

SuzieQ Not true. In a poll of old-time boxing men conducted by John McCallum in 1975, Ketchel ranked as the #1 All-Time Middleweight.

Can you post those results here?

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.”

On even older Film, Fitz seems faster handed.

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.”

This one is fair since Nat lived in that time line.

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.”

Silver never saw Ketchel. I do not doubt Ketchel was a big puncher.

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."

He never saw Ketchel either.

Of recent historians

Max Kellerman on Friday Nights Boxing in 2003 called Ketchel "The hardest hitter who ever lived".

You are quoting Kellerman??? Might as well add that he thinks Roy Jones beats Joe Frazier.

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.

I disagree here. We have two films. Even if Ketchel was hurt early, he has the other hand to work with. I fail to see any semblance of skills at all vs. Jack Johnson.

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?

Charlie Mitchell floored John L Sullivan. Johnson was floored by smaller men. CHoynski, and if you believe Jack's own words also by Langford, who was 156 pounds in that fight.

Johnson could not even get up on the first try. This is probably the hardest single punch a middleweight has ever recorded on film.

I agree here. Johnson was dazed and had to roll over and brace himself to get up. But Johnson did not take the best punch in the world. Yet the ones that landed on him square had a big effect. Ketchel would not rate as a top heavyweight puncher, which is a reason why I think Johnson is wildly over rated in a heavyweight head to head type of thread.

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.

That is my bad. So essentialy your disagreeing with old time historians here who feel Ketchel was #1, and the the IBRO poll that says Ketchel was #3. Kudos!!!

mcvey

04-07-2010, 07:05 AM

Can you post those results here?

On even older Film, Fitz seems faster handed.

This one is fair since Nat lived in that time line.

Silver never saw Ketchel. I do not doubt Ketchel was a big puncher.

He never saw Ketchel either.

You are quoting Kellerman??? Might as well add that he thinks Roy Jones beats Joe Frazier.

I disagree here. We have two films. Even if Ketchel was hurt early, he has the other hand to work with. I fail to see any semblance of skills at all vs. Jack Johnson.

Charlie Mitchell floored John L Sullivan. Johnson was floored by smaller men. CHoynski, and if you believe Jack's own words also by Langford, who was 156 pounds in that fight.

I agree here. Johnson was dazed and had to roll over and brace himself to get up. But Johnson did not take the best punch in the world. Yet the ones that landed on him square had a big effect. Ketchel would not rate as a top heavyweight puncher, which is a reason why I think Johnson is wildly over rated in a heavyweight head to head type of thread.

That is my bad. So essentialy your disagreeing with old time historians here who feel Ketchel was #1, and the the IBRO poll that says Ketchel was #3. Kudos!!!

This NEVER HAPPENED, AND YOU KNOW IT.

sweet_scientist

04-07-2010, 07:13 AM

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.

6 years and about 60 fights, but who's counting.

Look, there's no question that Philly Jack was still live when Ketchel beat him, but he WAS past his peak. Not only had he lost a couple of years ago to Tommy Burns, but he had lost to Hugo Kelly as well before that, so the signs were there he was beginning his descent.

And just to add, it's great that O'Brien was able to keep Jack Johnson to a draw, but really, is 6 rounds really the best gauge for where a fighter's at? I just wouldn't put that much stock in it.

mcvey

04-07-2010, 07:20 AM

Would anyone make a case for either Ryan or Dempsey?

In his book Fifty years At Ringside ,Nat Fleischer , rated the top 5 middles .
1.Ketchel
2.Ryan
3.Greb
4.Walker
5.Robinson

Vockerman

04-08-2010, 10:01 AM

Here is 20 since the division is so deep and so many are so very close...

Harry Greb
Carlos Monzon
Marvin Hagler
Ray Robinson
Stanley Ketchel
Mickey Walker
Jake LaMotta
Marcel Cerdan
Dick Tiger
Tommy Ryan
Mike Gibbons
Gene Fullmer
Charley Burley
Freddie Steele
Tony Zale
Bernard Hopkins
Les Darcy
Nino Benvenuti
John Edward Kelly
Mike O'Dowd

mcvey

04-08-2010, 10:04 AM

Lamotta did not age well due to his style, so this cannot be held against him upon his movement into the the lightheavyweight divison while well past his prime in the 1950s. Tiger had a style more suited for longevity.

I think there win resumes are pretty close

Jake Lamotta beat

Sugar Ray Robinson- HOF ATG
Marcel Cerdan- HOF ATG
Holman Williams
Bert Lytell
Tiberio Mitri
Laurent Dauthille
Robert Villemain
Fritzie Zivic 3x- HOF
Tony Janiro
Anton Raadick
Irish Bob Murphy

Tiger beat

Gene Fullmer 2x- HOF
Joey Giardello- HOF
Nino Benvenuti- HOF
Jose Torres- 2x- HOF
Hurricane Carter
Florentino Fernandez
Spider Webb
Henry Hank
Jose Gonzales
Peter Mueller
Roger Rouse
Wilf Greaves
Holly Mimms

Also Tiger was robbed in the first Emile Griffith fight, and the Joey Archer fight.

Very Close. I would give Tiger the clear edge in quantity, with lamotta the slight edge in quality. Overall..I would probably favor Tiger's resume. Had he been given the decision in the Griffith fight, it would not even be a debate.

Tiger also beat Terry Downes