Boxing News 24 Forum

Boxing News 24 Forum (http://www.boxingforum24.com/index.php)
-   Classic Boxing Forum (http://www.boxingforum24.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title. (http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=421868)

lufcrazy 08-03-2012 07:57 AM

Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
They fought a 6 round affair which doesn't strongly indicate either way how the two would have gone on in a real fight.

Who takes it? Ketchel had brutally unified the mw title claims as well as proved supremacy over his main championship rival.

Langford had compiled some great results as a welterweight and would soon go onto become the best active lhw and hw in the world.

These two might have been the hardest punchers in the sport and were certainly up there in any retrospective p4p list.

So who takes it? Would Langford finally claim an undisputed championship? Or would Ketchel secure a victory that would further strengthen his great mw legacy?

McGrain 08-03-2012 09:06 AM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Once Ketchel got out of 1908 (having absorbed one of the worst beatings in the history of the sport last year and dusted off one of the best MW divisions there would ever be), I think he had lost something. He didn't seem to be anything like as devastating behind this year. Also, rumours that had begun about his associating with undesirables (meaning junkies) had surfaced as early as the Kelly fight. I think he pulled himself together to exact his revenge upon Papke but after that he started to slip. It's there in his record apart from anything else.

It hurts me to say it, because I love Ketchel, but I don't think he was quite in Langford's class as a fighter. Even allowing for possible weight-drain issues i'd favour him quite heavily (considering the opponent) in 1910.

lufcrazy 08-03-2012 09:20 AM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain (Post 13508639)
Once Ketchel got out of 1908 (having absorbed one of the worst beatings in the history of the sport last year and dusted off one of the best MW divisions there would ever be), I think he had lost something. He didn't seem to be anything like as devastating behind this year. Also, rumours that had begun about his associating with undesirables (meaning junkies) had surfaced as early as the Kelly fight. I think he pulled himself together to exact his revenge upon Papke but after that he started to slip. It's there in his record apart from anything else.

It hurts me to say it, because I love Ketchel, but I don't think he was quite in Langford's class as a fighter. Even allowing for possible weight-drain issues i'd favour him quite heavily (considering the opponent) in 1910.

I think it's hard to say how much he had slipped. By that I mean he was still physically as capable as he ever was imo, and I think he could have gone onto be a long reigning MW champ (probably until Klaus hit his prime). Given his death it's easy to say he slipped, fought some non title affairs and then got killed, but we'll never know how much he'd slipped and whether it could be turned around (like chacon did, or was it limon I forget now).

anyways to this fight, I think Langford would be drained in it, I also think Langford would fail to score an early ko. If Ketchel can force a hard pace, he could score a late tko but he'd have to come from behind to do it.

I'm unsure whether I see Langford UD or Ketchel KO. they're the two most liekly outcomes for me.

McGrain 08-03-2012 09:23 AM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
I personally like Langford by knockout. I think Ketchel is a good deal more skilled than he gets credit for but that's not changing his style. Even rangey, granite-chinned HW's can get KTFO by one-Langford punch. I'm not holding up much hope for a charging MW however tough.

I guess you could argue that Langford was still pre-prime, both as a fighter and a puncher though.

lufcrazy 08-03-2012 09:28 AM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain (Post 13508718)
I personally like Langford by knockout. I think Ketchel is a good deal more skilled than he gets credit for but that's not changing his style. Even rangey, granite-chinned HW's can get KTFO by one-Langford punch. I'm not holding up much hope for a charging MW however tough.

I guess you could argue that Langford was still pre-prime, both as a fighter and a puncher though.

Yeah as far as trap setting goes, he's one of the best ever (as he proved by knocking out Flowers whilst bling!).

Ofcourse Langford could end it with one punch, but his puncher's chance is just as good as Ketchel's imo.

I pick him to outpoint Ketchel early doors by catching him on the way in and beating him up once there, but I see Langford tiring late on as Ketchel keeps coming forward until he overwhelms him or runs out of time.

MrBumboclart 08-03-2012 03:22 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Stamina, strength and workrate on Ketchel's behalf. He out-works Langford to a very close decision. It may even end in a draw. Langford is too slick and skilled to be hurt but he is out-worked by Stan who had the stamina of a triathlon and the strength of a bull.

janitor 08-03-2012 04:31 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
My inclination is that Langford would have won.

I think that Ketchel was sliping, and I think that Langford had been holding something back when they fought. I think that Langfod had set this potential fight up as carefully as he ever set up anything in his life.

greynotsoold 08-03-2012 04:55 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Langford called Ketchel "a good man that he couldn't knockout in 6 rounds." I think that sums it up.

Seamus 08-03-2012 04:57 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by janitor (Post 13511621)
My inclination is that Langford would have won.

I think that Ketchel was sliping, and I think that Langford had been holding something back when they fought. I think that Langfod had set this potential fight up as carefully as he ever set up anything in his life.

It sure sounded as though Langford was taking it easy in the 6th round, trying to keep it close, in hopes of a lucrative rematch.

McGrain 08-03-2012 05:03 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by greynotsoold (Post 13511853)
Langford called Ketchel "a good man that he couldn't knockout in 6 rounds." I think that sums it up.

:lol:

lufcrazy 08-03-2012 05:30 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
did the rematch ever come close to being made?

mcvey 08-03-2012 05:36 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy (Post 13508268)
They fought a 6 round affair which doesn't strongly indicate either way how the two would have gone on in a real fight.

Who takes it? Ketchel had brutally unified the mw title claims as well as proved supremacy over his main championship rival.

Langford had compiled some great results as a welterweight and would soon go onto become the best active lhw and hw in the world.

These two might have been the hardest punchers in the sport and were certainly up there in any retrospective p4p list.

So who takes it? Would Langford finally claim an undisputed championship? Or would Ketchel secure a victory that would further strengthen his great mw legacy?

Langford and by ko ,Stanley was sliding in1910.

lufcrazy 08-03-2012 05:42 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
I don't buy this sliding business, am I missing something here?

is it beyiond the realm of possibility that he had just infact "dipped" and would come back to form for a championship bout?

McGrain 08-03-2012 05:45 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Very possible.

mcvey 08-03-2012 06:18 PM

Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy (Post 13512384)
I don't buy this sliding business, am I missing something here?

is it beyiond the realm of possibility that he had just infact "dipped" and would come back to form for a championship bout?

Ketchel was an opium addict by 1910 ,he also had syphilis .There are tales of fighters being paid to take it easy on him by then.Wilson Mizner ,[who took over as Ketchel's manager after Willus Britt died] is supposed to have paid Frank Klaus to go easy in their fight.Even if the tales of fighters being paid to take it easy are just apocryphal,being a druggie and, having syph would indicate that you are definitey not at your best,or would you not agree?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015