WHO WINS???
I know they fought to a 6 round No decision bout. BUt if they both fought in theior primes a 15 round fight at middleweight who would win????
close call i think I favor Sam Langford by close decision.
bARRY WHAT DO U THINK
Sam Langford vs Stanley Ketchell
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
re
15 rounds and Langford did not have his hands tied...Langford by knockout in the middle rounds. After two barn-burner rounds, Langford pulls out in the lead at the start of the third with superior skill and harder punching. Langford was also probably much stronger physically than Ketchel, which would play a part in the outcome as well. Langford lays a brutal beating on Ketchel, more so than Papke did when he sucker-punched Ketchel, and the “Michigan Assassin” is counted out around the eighth round.
Re: re
I don't know about that, Ketchel was one tough mother, so was Langford (you know he was Canadian) he died penniless and blind in a rooming house I believe. He beat alot of the best fighters, or fought them anyways, of his time. He was not a big man either, much smaller than Jack Johnson (by 30 lbs) who he also fought.barry wrote:15 rounds and Langford did not have his hands tied...Langford by knockout in the middle rounds. After two barn-burner rounds, Langford pulls out in the lead at the start of the third with superior skill and harder punching. Langford was also probably much stronger physically than Ketchel, which would play a part in the outcome as well. Langford lays a brutal beating on Ketchel, more so than Papke did when he sucker-punched Ketchel, and the “Michigan Assassin” is counted out around the eighth round.
cheers M.O.
re
No doubt Ketchel was a very tough man and one of the best middleweights ever, but personally I believe he was out-gunned by Langford. In their 6 round ND bout in Philly, Langford was almost certainly under wraps to not put forth his best effort as he was hoping very much to gain a bout with Ketchel for the middleweight title to take place somewhere on the West Coast and be scheduled for at least 15+ rounds, but that never happened and the result of their one bout had mixed reviews from several newspapers, some said Langford had the better of the bout and other papers said Ketchel, but one thing most was in agreement about was that Langford certainly did not seem to be givving it his all.
absolutely right Barry. I have read several times that the no-decision was only a set up for a fight to come later, and that Sam held back with the understanding he was going to get a title shot.
Sam was desperate for a title shot,and probably would have laid down for that first fight if they asked him to.
But old Sam was double cross eh? Cause he never got that title shot. THey say it is because the first fight was a bore (with Sam holding back and all), but I think they still could have put on the fight with great interest from the public (most knew Sam was holding back, he had done it alot in those days. He carried guys and fought them again later.)
But Ketchel's camp knew Sam was a terror (check out the heavyweight he has beaten. KOed a who is who of the top heavyweights from that era) and I doubt they had any intention of a rematch. They made that fight to make Ketchel look good.
You can probably already tell I pick Langford to KO Ketchel. Langford has KOed tough competition than Ketchel, and was the goods. Sam could have won titles in multiple divisions if given the title shots. From middleweight to heavyweight.
Sam was desperate for a title shot,and probably would have laid down for that first fight if they asked him to.
But old Sam was double cross eh? Cause he never got that title shot. THey say it is because the first fight was a bore (with Sam holding back and all), but I think they still could have put on the fight with great interest from the public (most knew Sam was holding back, he had done it alot in those days. He carried guys and fought them again later.)
But Ketchel's camp knew Sam was a terror (check out the heavyweight he has beaten. KOed a who is who of the top heavyweights from that era) and I doubt they had any intention of a rematch. They made that fight to make Ketchel look good.
You can probably already tell I pick Langford to KO Ketchel. Langford has KOed tough competition than Ketchel, and was the goods. Sam could have won titles in multiple divisions if given the title shots. From middleweight to heavyweight.
My hunch is that Lanforg would be too strong for him going down the stretch. If you look at how competative Langford was with guys like McVea, Jeanette and Willis, and then you look at the way Johnson was able to pull the trigger on Ketchel at will following his knockdown--I just don't think Ketchel was up to the level of the best heavyweights (even the smaller ones) of his day, while Langford definitely was.
I don't know, I feel like it's easy for fighters and their supporters to say all kinds of sh-- in retrospect, about holding back and whatever. That is not what the press report quoted here on Ketchel and Langford's record says.
"Ketchel and Langford will have to fight again to settle the question of supremacy. They went a hard six-round bout at the National athletic club here and were both on their feet, able to continue, with plenty of strength and aggressiveness when the battle ended, with no decision by the referee. No knockdowns were scored in spite of the terrific hitting power of both men, and while there seems to be no doubt that they tried to do their best , they will probably come together in a longer fight in California next July for a large purse. (…) New York fight critics today disagree as to the winner of the Ketchel-Langford fight in Philadelphia. The World, American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel. The Sun, Press and Tribune call it a draw, though the Tribune says Langford had a shade the better of the battle. The Herald alone gives the victory to the Boston ‘Tar Baby.'"(Marion Daily Star)
Give Ketchel another 10 or 15 years more for his career, like Langford had, and then say who is best. Since Ketchel's death sealed his "prime" it seems like a prime Langford would have quite a large experience advantage.
-Dapa
"Ketchel and Langford will have to fight again to settle the question of supremacy. They went a hard six-round bout at the National athletic club here and were both on their feet, able to continue, with plenty of strength and aggressiveness when the battle ended, with no decision by the referee. No knockdowns were scored in spite of the terrific hitting power of both men, and while there seems to be no doubt that they tried to do their best , they will probably come together in a longer fight in California next July for a large purse. (…) New York fight critics today disagree as to the winner of the Ketchel-Langford fight in Philadelphia. The World, American and Times give the fight unqualifiedly to Ketchel. The Sun, Press and Tribune call it a draw, though the Tribune says Langford had a shade the better of the battle. The Herald alone gives the victory to the Boston ‘Tar Baby.'"(Marion Daily Star)
Give Ketchel another 10 or 15 years more for his career, like Langford had, and then say who is best. Since Ketchel's death sealed his "prime" it seems like a prime Langford would have quite a large experience advantage.
-Dapa
-
Roll With The Punches
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 20 Feb 2003, 12:50
Re: re
barry wrote: In their 6 round ND bout in Philly, Langford was almost certainly under wraps to not put forth his best effort as he was hoping very much to gain a bout with Ketchel for the middleweight title to take place somewhere on the West Coast and be scheduled for at least 15+ rounds,
funny how guys like Langford and Johnson get a free pass due to thisthey held back in each and every fight and would have actually KO'd their opponent in the 1st
re
>>>funny how guys like Langford and Johnson get a free pass due to this<<<
Nothing free about it, it's the way that things were in that era...if the top colored fighters wanted good fights against top white fighters, they had to perform less than their best, but most times, Langford and Johnson was so much better than most that they could still win while not giving forth their best effort.
Nothing free about it, it's the way that things were in that era...if the top colored fighters wanted good fights against top white fighters, they had to perform less than their best, but most times, Langford and Johnson was so much better than most that they could still win while not giving forth their best effort.
Re: re
Wait a minute, you're saying they were discriminated against because of their boxing prowess? For some reason I thought it was the color of their skin...barry wrote: Nothing free about it, it's the way that things were in that era...if the top colored fighters wanted good fights against top white fighters, they had to perform less than their best, but most times, Langford and Johnson was so much better than most that they could still win while not giving forth their best effort.
But I guess we all know the REAL reason for racism: African atheltic superiority.
-Dapa
Re: re
It is not that they were black, thus that much better than the white hopes of their day. Look at what happened when Dempsey came on the scene. He literally cleaned out the division and crushed all the white hopes on his way to a title shot. In his title shot he beat the white hope that delivered to a bloody pulp.Dapaper wrote:Wait a minute, you're saying they were discriminated against because of their boxing prowess? For some reason I thought it was the color of their skin...barry wrote: Nothing free about it, it's the way that things were in that era...if the top colored fighters wanted good fights against top white fighters, they had to perform less than their best, but most times, Langford and Johnson was so much better than most that they could still win while not giving forth their best effort.
But I guess we all know the REAL reason for racism: African atheltic superiority.
-Dapa
I dare say Dempsey would have been too much for Johnson. He was just as fast, but hit much harder. His defense was not as good, but his offense was much better. He was not as agile nor had as good reflexes, but he had a granite chin and relentless pressure fighter (great at closing the distance).
BUt matching Langford and Johnson with the white hopes...yes they were a level above in most cases.
re
I'll always choose the Dempsey that entered the ring on July 4, 1919 over just about any heavyweight ever and although I rank Ali and Louis first and second and Dempsey third, I have a hard time thinking that they could have beat Dempsey at his best. Actually, I think with fighters of that caliber, any one of them could win on any given day. Dempsey had a better defense than a lot of people give him credit for and his offense is tops, probably the best offensive machine ever at any weight!
i am a big Dempsey fan, but I don't see him beating either Louis or Ali (though he would have a puncher's chance. One good shot could change the fight).
He was no chump at defense, but he was no Johnson either. Johnson moved around the ring adn evaded blows very well.
Jack did have a great chin, and could pulverize you with his offense. No doubt though that the competition was higher in ALi's day. It was the golden era of the heavyweights.
They were bigger and stronger, and yet still as fast, mobile and agile. Guys from Dempsey's era who were 220 pounds were HUGE, and were not the most agile and fastest of heavyweights. But by the 70's most heavywegihts were that big, and they were VERY athletic.
Like all sports, I think you should compare guys to fighters in their era. Training, supliments (and steroids), gained bodily knowledge, etc have changed ALL SPORTS.
Basketball players, foot ball players, 100 meter runners, baseball players, have all come a long way since 1919. It stands to reason so have boxers. Only boxers seem to be measure differently.
He was no chump at defense, but he was no Johnson either. Johnson moved around the ring adn evaded blows very well.
Jack did have a great chin, and could pulverize you with his offense. No doubt though that the competition was higher in ALi's day. It was the golden era of the heavyweights.
They were bigger and stronger, and yet still as fast, mobile and agile. Guys from Dempsey's era who were 220 pounds were HUGE, and were not the most agile and fastest of heavyweights. But by the 70's most heavywegihts were that big, and they were VERY athletic.
Like all sports, I think you should compare guys to fighters in their era. Training, supliments (and steroids), gained bodily knowledge, etc have changed ALL SPORTS.
Basketball players, foot ball players, 100 meter runners, baseball players, have all come a long way since 1919. It stands to reason so have boxers. Only boxers seem to be measure differently.
I'm a huge Louis fan, but I like Ali's chances better against Dempsey. Ali was much harder to hit flush, and showed an absolutely fantastic chin on those occasions when someone did. Louis good but not great defense, and a very good, but I don't think truly great chin. Of course, what he did have was insane recuperative powers and the ability to come back very strong from getting hurt or knocked done. Still, I think what Ali brought to the table minimized the6 Pack wrote:i am a big Dempsey fan, but I don't see him beating either Louis or Ali (though he would have a puncher's chance. One good shot could change the fight).
I think you're right, generally speaking, but one thing that may mitigate against the assumption that more recent boxers--or at least more recent heavyweights--must be better than in the old days is the economic side of pro sports. The fact that there are so many other opportunities to make a lot of money in a lot of other sports, and that conseqently boxing is no longer the marquee sport that it once was, has tended to reduce the depth of competition. Of course, that argument doesn't really apply to Louis's era, and I think was only starting to have any impact at the time of Ali.6 Pack wrote:Like all sports, I think you should compare guys to fighters in their era. Training, supliments (and steroids), gained bodily knowledge, etc have changed ALL SPORTS.
Basketball players, foot ball players, 100 meter runners, baseball players, have all come a long way since 1919. It stands to reason so have boxers. Only boxers seem to be measure differently.
I think you are right about the amount of competition theory. It is easier to rise to the top of a smaller talent pool than a bigger one for sure.dan1030 wrote:I'm a huge Louis fan, but I like Ali's chances better against Dempsey. Ali was much harder to hit flush, and showed an absolutely fantastic chin on those occasions when someone did. Louis good but not great defense, and a very good, but I don't think truly great chin. Of course, what he did have was insane recuperative powers and the ability to come back very strong from getting hurt or knocked done. Still, I think what Ali brought to the table minimized the6 Pack wrote:i am a big Dempsey fan, but I don't see him beating either Louis or Ali (though he would have a puncher's chance. One good shot could change the fight).
I think you're right, generally speaking, but one thing that may mitigate against the assumption that more recent boxers--or at least more recent heavyweights--must be better than in the old days is the economic side of pro sports. The fact that there are so many other opportunities to make a lot of money in a lot of other sports, and that conseqently boxing is no longer the marquee sport that it once was, has tended to reduce the depth of competition. Of course, that argument doesn't really apply to Louis's era, and I think was only starting to have any impact at the time of Ali.6 Pack wrote:Like all sports, I think you should compare guys to fighters in their era. Training, supliments (and steroids), gained bodily knowledge, etc have changed ALL SPORTS.
Basketball players, foot ball players, 100 meter runners, baseball players, have all come a long way since 1919. It stands to reason so have boxers. Only boxers seem to be measure differently.
BUt there are alot more people around today then back in 1919. I am not so sure there are not the same amount of heavyweights. I am also not sure even if there was more heavyweights in 1919 that it outweighs the technological adn biological differences.
Athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, more explosive, and have a great knowledge of new training. Those old heavyweights, like Dempsey, would be small cruiserweights today
Not that Dempsey would not wipe out the cruiser division, and beat all the heavies, but you get a good idea of how long athletes have come.
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Well...some of them...6 Pack wrote:
Athletes are bigger, stronger, faster, more explosive, and have a great knowledge of new training. Those old heavyweights, like Dempsey, would be small cruiserweights today
Not that Dempsey would not wipe out the cruiser division, and beat all the heavies, but you get a good idea of how long athletes have come.
Take, for instance, Riddick Bowe...he was 'bigger, stronger, more explosive, had all the modern training advantages'...but do you think he'd beat Dempsey?...a lot of it still depends on the individual, if you lived in the 1920's---and you were truly dedicated, you could have ranked higher than a guy from the '90's, who wasn't dedicated...
Today's training methods and other 'advantages' don't seem to be being used by today's heavyweight field...you don't see anyone mentioning anybody out there today as an all time great...Sure, they're bigger...maybe stronger in some cases...but they sure aren't better...if you want to see a good heavyweight fight today, you have to watch an old film...
And...to answer the original question of this thread...Langford would have destroyed Ketchel in a one sided mismatch...
These guys are not great amongst themselves, as every one has the same advantages.
But I agree that this group of heavyweights is lacking. It is rough times for the heavyweight division.
But lets use the guys from the 90's, like Mike tyson, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, etc.
They were tough, and compared to guys in Jack Johnson's day (remember Jack won the title by beat 5'7" 175lbs. Tommy Burns adn defended against some pretty ordinary fighters even for that era.) they are HUGE and very athletic (Lennox and Bowe) and mix incredible strength with speed (Tyson and Holyfield).
You can picture them at that time and every one would be like "Wow " when they would seem them in action.
But I agree, fighting does involve mental toughness, and is very much mental. But at the top level, mental toughness will be there, it is not a thing that has been lost. Look at Holyfield, Gatti, etc.
But I agree that this group of heavyweights is lacking. It is rough times for the heavyweight division.
But lets use the guys from the 90's, like Mike tyson, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, etc.
They were tough, and compared to guys in Jack Johnson's day (remember Jack won the title by beat 5'7" 175lbs. Tommy Burns adn defended against some pretty ordinary fighters even for that era.) they are HUGE and very athletic (Lennox and Bowe) and mix incredible strength with speed (Tyson and Holyfield).
You can picture them at that time and every one would be like "Wow
" when they would seem them in action.But I agree, fighting does involve mental toughness, and is very much mental. But at the top level, mental toughness will be there, it is not a thing that has been lost. Look at Holyfield, Gatti, etc.
re
A lot of people argue that today's fighters are just so much more advanced than those of yesteryear and the skills of todays fighters are so much better, but even if that was the case, which I certainly do not believe, it would not really make a difference in the outcome of fights. Jack Johnson was a master boxer and a specialist with the jab and like I've said before, as we all witnessed a couple of months ago, Winky Wright dominated a great fighter that had just about every punch in the book, and Winky did it with a jab and straight right...the oldest and most effective combo in boxing for both yesteryear and today!
-
Sweet Scientist
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 18:19
Re: re
You're on the right track with that thought...other sports change more than boxing...in boxing, only the rules & countless governing bodies change...the way you win fights remains the same...training, conditioning, proper nutrition, dedication, etc...they may come up with a new zone defense in the NFL, or a new pitch in baseball...but there hasn't been a new punch in boxing or a new way to avoid punches since the beginning...it's easier to envision a fighter from the turn of the 20th century fighting someone from today than it is to envision a baseball player from the same time trying to fit in today...barry wrote:A lot of people argue that today's fighters are just so much more advanced than those of yesteryear and the skills of todays fighters are so much better, but even if that was the case, which I certainly do not believe, it would not really make a difference in the outcome of fights. Jack Johnson was a master boxer and a specialist with the jab and like I've said before, as we all witnessed a couple of months ago, Winky Wright dominated a great fighter that had just about every punch in the book, and Winky did it with a jab and straight right...the oldest and most effective combo in boxing for both yesteryear and today!
Lose the hype and TV coverage (and 'trash talk')...boxing is closer to what is was 100 years ago than any other sport...
Re: re
May be, may be notSweet Scientist wrote:You're on the right track with that thought...other sports change more than boxing...in boxing, only the rules & countless governing bodies change...the way you win fights remains the same...training, conditioning, proper nutrition, dedication, etc...they may come up with a new zone defense in the NFL, or a new pitch in baseball...but there hasn't been a new punch in boxing or a new way to avoid punches since the beginning...it's easier to envision a fighter from the turn of the 20th century fighting someone from today than it is to envision a baseball player from the same time trying to fit in today...barry wrote:A lot of people argue that today's fighters are just so much more advanced than those of yesteryear and the skills of todays fighters are so much better, but even if that was the case, which I certainly do not believe, it would not really make a difference in the outcome of fights. Jack Johnson was a master boxer and a specialist with the jab and like I've said before, as we all witnessed a couple of months ago, Winky Wright dominated a great fighter that had just about every punch in the book, and Winky did it with a jab and straight right...the oldest and most effective combo in boxing for both yesteryear and today!
Lose the hype and TV coverage (and 'trash talk')...boxing is closer to what is was 100 years ago than any other sport...
How simple is running?
I would say alot simpler than boxing. And look at how far athletes have progressed in running.
Like boxing, you don't find a new way to run. You just run. But look at the athletes of yester year who are legends like Jesse Owens, and look at his records compared to the guys today. Today he could not stack up, but in his day he was untouchable.