How would Ketchel fare against these mw greats of our time? I can see him koing Jones if he managed to catch him flush. Same goes for Hopkins. Even Toney's fabulous chin wouldn't necessarily hold up if he got hit flush. McClellan would be the most exciting fight. There it would be the first guy to land a bomb wins. And that would probably be G-Man, with his speed. So I actually give him the best chance to beat Ketchel.
-
-
Very interesting, I've just read Jack Kearns comparing Ketchel to Darcy, saying it would have been the greatest fight of them all. In the article "Doc", said that Ketchel was a real hit and miss guy, if he landed chances are he'd knock just about any MW out, he also said that Darcy was a great hitter to, but incredibly consistent and landed at will. From what I can gather of Ketchel is that none of today's guys could go toe to toe with Stanley without disaster.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that if you are putting money on a fight with Toney, Hopkins or Jones, you would not put your money on Ketchel unless you were getting good odds. In other words the other guys are the betting favourites, but it's hard to say how they turn out, These guys are quicker, have good defence which Ketchel seemed to disdain, they can outbox him quite well over 12 rds and have a hard fought victories. Stanley is tougher however and would be a favourite over the FULL 20 rds........... but Ketchel may be T.K.O.'d during the mid-rounds when his face and eye's start to puff and if the pace is high.Originally posted by Pastrano View Post -
Ketchel loses a decision to all of them over 15 rounds. I can see McLellan and Jones stopping him.Comment
-
Probably,..... but.... ONE PUNCH away is Stan at all times.Originally posted by Barnburner View PostComment
-
Fighting in Ketchells day is not the same fighting as today, same rules yet it's a different kind of fight. Back then it was crude, it has been refined through the years.
Ketchell does not last 10 rounds with any of those fighters..........Rockin'
Comment
-
-
Read my latest thread, Darcy was nothing like Ketchel, Les wasn't a crude fighter,.... in most of Darcy's fights opponents are complaining that he's too slick, hits too hard and often, and they cannot lay a glove on him, my Kearns thread relates a bit of this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To tell you the truth, it's very hard to tell the styles of this era to his, but, yes I believe he was so good that he's a massive handfull for any fighter under heavyweight. Darcy's and Ketchel's era had fighters of all styles, I laugh when I hear some statements about crudeness of that era, all because they have seen probably something in the way of less than 1% of the action from fights Pre-30's........ In my opinion there were many different styles of fighter....... Darcy was pre-emminent, Mike Gibbons could have shown you skills that many today would simply gawk at, ditto Tunney, ditto McFarland and they were slick boxers...................Hopkins was pre-emminent in his prime, and what more can he ask for....... Darcy was rated as one of the ATG's then, he is now too. ------------------------ And I think yes he could beat hopkins, at least he'd be closer in the skills department than Ketchell...........AND BTW.... thanks for the question, it was a pleasure.Originally posted by Pastrano View PostBut Les Darcy would beat them all easily.
Right?
Comment
-
Darcy beats Ketchel by comfortable decision from the footage I have watched.Originally posted by Pastrano View PostBut Les Darcy would beat them all easily. Right?Comment
-
-
I think he does well against Toney and B-Hop maybe slitting series but, gets murked against Jones and McLellan.Originally posted by Pastrano View PostComment
Comment