BoxRec

I'd want to be ringside for this one.

Hi Keith good to see you post again.

Obviously I've not seen Ketchel box but there was a piece on him last week on bits and pieces thread; he was some slugger by all accounts.

I'd have to go with Golovkin though, Ketchel had beaten every tough miner and lumberjack around but Golovkin has sparked full time fighters, well fed and conditioned to box.

palooka wrote:Hi Keith good to see you post again.

Obviously I've not seen Ketchel box but there was a piece on him last week on bits and pieces thread; he was some slugger by all accounts.

I'd have to go with Golovkin though, Ketchel had beaten every tough miner and lumberjack around but Golovkin has sparked full time fighters, well fed and conditioned to box.

Hello mate.

Regarding these two fighters. Do you think GGG would have knocked Jack Johnson down if they fought.

I'm not sure about that Keith, didn't Stanley smack Jack on the sly? I imagine if Golovkin hit Johnson with his Sunday punch when he wasn't expecting it he'd have some effect.

palooka wrote:Hi Keith good to see you post again.

Obviously I've not seen Ketchel box but there was a piece on him last week on bits and pieces thread; he was some slugger by all accounts.

I'd have to go with Golovkin though, Ketchel had beaten every tough miner and lumberjack around but Golovkin has sparked full time fighters, well fed and conditioned to box.

Why is it that fighters from way back that people don't know anything about are often dismissed as lumberjacks, miners etc?
Anyway Ketchel also beat O'Brien, Papke 3(x), and the Sullivan brothers. Golotvkin has not beat anyone like that yet.

There's a piece on Ketchel, posted on 7th May on bits and pieces thread - mentions mining camps etc etc

If Ketchel fought in this era he'd likely be a superstar. Who knows how good GGG could really be as he hasn't fought any great fighters yet

for the moment I can only award this one to the assassin - far better resume

dr_devious wrote:If Ketchel fought in this era he'd likely be a superstar. Who knows how good GGG could really be as he hasn't fought any great fighters yet

I think the GGG love boat has sailed into the world of freaking fantasy.
What has he done to be compared to all time greats at this moment????????

I think some people should just sit back a couple of more years and see what he develops into.
At this moment his resume is just a bit better than Wilders.
And no I don't want to think of any fantasy fights for Wilder either.Damn I need a drink after reading all the
GGG bullsquirt.

tiny_acres wrote:

dr_devious wrote:If Ketchel fought in this era he'd likely be a superstar. Who knows how good GGG could really be as he hasn't fought any great fighters yet

I think the GGG love boat has sailed into the world of freaking fantasy.
What has he done to be compared to all time greats at this moment????????

I think some people should just sit back a couple of more years and see what he develops into.
At this moment his resume is just a bit better than Wilders.
And no I don't want to think of any fantasy fights for Wilder either.Damn I need a drink after reading all the
GGG bullsquirt.

Some people still don't seem to get that the results of fights aren't determined by resumes. Watch this footage and tell me why, based on what you see, GGG doesn't belong in this type of match-up and why he wouldn't win:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAOHjLJGqis

By today's standards this would be considered very rudimentary boxing. Hell of a lot of holding too!

crusader wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

dr_devious wrote:If Ketchel fought in this era he'd likely be a superstar. Who knows how good GGG could really be as he hasn't fought any great fighters yet

I think the GGG love boat has sailed into the world of freaking fantasy.
What has he done to be compared to all time greats at this moment????????

I think some people should just sit back a couple of more years and see what he develops into.
At this moment his resume is just a bit better than Wilders.
And no I don't want to think of any fantasy fights for Wilder either.Damn I need a drink after reading all the
GGG bullsquirt.

Some people still don't seem to get that fights aren't won on resumes. Watch this footage and tell me why, based on what you see, GGG doesn't belong in this type of match-up and why he wouldn't win:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAOHjLJGqis

By today's standards this would be considered very rudimentary boxing.

Because you have to have a base point.Meaning at least to have a decent freaking opponent to
compare his skills with.
How freaking hard is that to understand. John Mugabi is a perfect example.He looked like a freaking God
against limited opposition.But how did he really turn out?
I am not convinced of GGG being GREAT yet.I need to see him prove it.And not against limited C level opposition.
People are giving him a pass before he has proven himself.

Fighters don't need the same resumes to be compared to one another. Of course you can consider opposition fought when you've make predictions for these types of fights, but as I said fights aren't won based on who has a better resume; they're won based on who can get the better of the other person in the ring.

So much of the discussion in this section is reduced to simple-minded resume picking rather than actually looking at the strengths and weaknesses fighters showed. I posted a clip to a Ketchel fight and instead of telling me why, based on the footage of Ketchel actually fighting, GGG doesn't belong in that type of bout and why he doesn't win. If you can't do that it's your stance that is laughble.

I'll ask you again--based on the footage, which in my view shows very crude boxing and loads of holding, though probably not as much as seen in Jack Johnson's bouts--why doesn't GGG belong against Ketchel and why couldn't he beat him?

crusader wrote:Fighters don't need the same resumes to be compared to one another. Of course you can consider opposition fought when you've make predictions for these types of fights, but as I said fights aren't won based on who has a better resume; they're won based on who can get the better of the other person in the ring.

So much of the discussion in this section is reduced to simple-minded resume picking rather than actually looking at the strengths and weaknesses fighters showed. I posted a clip to a Ketchel fight and instead of telling me why, based on the footage of Ketchel actually fighting, GGG doesn't belong in that type of bout and why he doesn't win. If you can't do that it's your stance that is laughble.

I'll ask you again, based on the footage, which in my view shows very crude boxing and loads of holding, why doesn't GGG belong against Ketchel and why couldn't he beat him?

I don't want to compare resumes. I am trying to explain my opinion.
I can not judge how GGG would do without seeing him at least once a gins another A level oponent.
it does not mean I am comparing resumes. I need to see for myself hoe GGG
handles someone with a pulse. I need to see this to make a reasonable argument one way or the other. As I have said I think GGG is for real and probably will end up in these discussions. But for now I can not compare the 2.I know how Ketchel handled great oponents. I have no idea how GGG will.

Okay, but to me your dismissive position on the bout is quite flimsy given that you won't say a word about the footage of the competitors ACTUALLY competing; that's what they would be doing in the ring, not sitting comparing opponents they've fought, and the footage could also help inform your opinion of the quality of who they were fighting.

tiny_acres wrote:

dr_devious wrote:If Ketchel fought in this era he'd likely be a superstar. Who knows how good GGG could really be as he hasn't fought any great fighters yet

I think the GGG love boat has sailed into the world of freaking fantasy.
What has he done to be compared to all time greats at this moment????????

I think some people should just sit back a couple of more years and see what he develops into.
At this moment his resume is just a bit better than Wilders.
And no I don't want to think of any fantasy fights for Wilder either.Damn I need a drink after reading all the
GGG bullsquirt.

I'm going to start the "how would Wilder have fared against Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Norton & Holmes era?" Thread

davie wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

dr_devious wrote:If Ketchel fought in this era he'd likely be a superstar. Who knows how good GGG could really be as he hasn't fought any great fighters yet

I think the GGG love boat has sailed into the world of freaking fantasy.
What has he done to be compared to all time greats at this moment????????

I think some people should just sit back a couple of more years and see what he develops into.
At this moment his resume is just a bit better than Wilders.
And no I don't want to think of any fantasy fights for Wilder either.Damn I need a drink after reading all the
GGG bullsquirt.

I'm going to start the "how would Wilder have fared against Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Norton & Holmes era?" Thread

I may need therapy after seeing that

tiny_acres wrote:

davie wrote:

tiny_acres wrote:

I think the GGG love boat has sailed into the world of freaking fantasy.
What has he done to be compared to all time greats at this moment????????

I think some people should just sit back a couple of more years and see what he develops into.
At this moment his resume is just a bit better than Wilders.
And no I don't want to think of any fantasy fights for Wilder either.Damn I need a drink after reading all the
GGG bullsquirt.

I'm going to start the "how would Wilder have fared against Frazier, Ali, Foreman, Norton & Holmes era?" Thread

I may need therapy after seeing that

I've made many arguments for why I don't think Wilder lives with the Wlad, Povetkin, Pulev, Fury era, So you wont have to worry

Davie it's all good.

Wanted to make some points:
First, this is not "rudimentary Boxing". These are skilled fighters. They were never known as slick boxers; however, they both had a lot of ability. You have to remember that the clip shown picks up the fight in the 9th round, and skips around all the way to the 20th. It was an outdoor afternoon fight on July 5, in Caifornia. Probably was close to 100 degrees.
It was amazing there was as much action as there was.

As for strengths and resumes. Resumes do count for something because they tell us how good they are and is a measuring stick regarding how strong the weakness are and how weak the weaknesses are. A fighter is not going to have a great resume if he has a lot of bad weakness and/or not many major strengths.

People like to cherrypick the styles make fights argument. They will point out one weakness that Fighter A has and say that fighter B will win because of it. However, if fighter A has a great resume, then somehow or another he has been able to overcome this weakness, if it's really there.

Styles do matter if they are close in ability; however the better fighter usually wins.
The big question is how good is Golovkin? We don't have an answer yet.

No, the footage starts in the first when they are nearly fresh as possible, yet even at that stage they're holding repeatedly and the punches are wide, telegraphed, fairly slow, and rarely come in combination, with virtually no head movement being shown. This is very much rudimentary boxing and technique of that level or better can be seen very frequently today.

I never said that resumes are irrelevant, but someone doesn't win a fight because they have a better resume and hence analysis of these type of bouts should consider the qualities the fighters displayed when ACTUALLY fighting, which is what the footage is for. Moreover, if you have seen close to nothing of one's opponents, how can you be confident that he really was beating vastly better opposition than someone like GGG? Perhaps the standards were lower in the earlier 1900s, when from the available footage it seems like boxers only threw one punch at a time, were technically crude, rarely moved their heads or showed anything more than basic defense, and clinched practically every 10 seconds.

So when virtually no one has seen more than a tiny bit of a fighter and his opposition in action and the extant footage reveals many limitations on both ends, I don't see how you can dismiss these types of match-ups on the basis of GGG being the one with too many unknowns.

There is less than 1 minute of the first round shown. Many fights have little action in the first 45-50 seconds of the first round

Disagree with your description of how they looked; I don't see the wide punches and I do see two skilled fighters who were as tough as nails; people will to decide for themselves.
Ketchel-Papke was an intense fight fought at close quarters. Maybe that kind of fight it isn't your cup of tea, but it doesn't mean they were not skilled fighters.
No, it wasn't two modern day fighters bouncing around trying to look mean. Generally speaking, I don't where the skill level is that impressive with the majority of modern fighters.

There have been great, very good, good ,average, below average, and awful fighters in every era. Ketchel was in at least the very good category.

Have you ever seen Philadelphia O'Brien fight? He could move around as good as any modern fighter. Look how Ketchel did against him.

Going on the footage posted, Golovkin could compete on good terms with either man. There were hardly any clean punches landed that I seen and it seemed both guys like to wrestle on a scale Ricky Hatton would have been proud of.

I've read Ketchel gave Sam Langford a very good tussle and as far as the footage I've seen of Sam, he looks very good indeed. So it's a tough call.

I do agree that GGGs opposition hasn't been stellar, to say the least.

palooka wrote:Hi Keith good to see you post again.

Obviously I've not seen Ketchel box but there was a piece on him last week on bits and pieces thread; he was some slugger by all accounts.

I'd have to go with Golovkin though, Ketchel had beaten every tough miner and lumberjack around but Golovkin has sparked full time fighters, well fed and conditioned to box.

You won't see Ketchel box much. He was a crude fighter, who had good power and limited defense. GGG blows him out inside 3 rounds.

Tomasino wrote:Going on the footage posted, Golovkin could compete on good terms with either man. There were hardly any clean punches landed that I seen and it seemed both guys like to wrestle on a scale Ricky Hatton would have been proud of.

I've read Ketchel gave Sam Langford a very good tussle and as far as the footage I've seen of Sam, he looks very good indeed. So it's a tough call.

I do agree that GGGs opposition hasn't been stellar, to say the least.

Langford took it easy on Ketchel to set up a larger fight. Langford was the better, but Ketchel came on strong at the close of round six.

This is just the old vs new argument all over again. There's no way of really knowing. You can judge greatness though and Ketchel is far far greater than GGG. GGG hasn't fought any of the top men around his weight - not floyd or Canelo or cotto or at super middle froch or ward or etc etc. Ketchel fought all the top guys around and way above his and beat almost all of them.

With Golovkin it is hard to place him at the moment. What if he moves up and takes on Froch and Froch wipes the floor with him? All of a sudden he's nothing right? Well that's the thing with this match up. We know Ketchel - he was tried and tested - Golovkin we don't.

The footage from the Ketchell fight proves nothing. Outdoors in the sun, middle of the day, tiny gloves and a time limit of 20 rounds, they had to pace themselves.

Calling all Ketchel's opponents miners and lumberjacks is ill informed. They were tough, hungry and committed fighters. Fighters back then were very well trained indeed. Just read Pollack's books on Jack johnson and see what sort of training him and jeffries did.