Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: Ketchel v Langford
Ketchel wins 2 14.29%
Langford wins 12 85.71%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2012, 07:57 AM   #1
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default 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?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-03-2012, 09:06 AM   #2
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,381
vCash: 1000
Default 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.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:20 AM   #3
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
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.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:23 AM   #4
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,381
vCash: 1000
Default 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.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:28 AM   #5
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
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.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 03:22 PM   #6
MrBumboclart
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 332
vCash: 500
Default 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.
MrBumboclart is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 04:31 PM   #7
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20,568
vCash: 1000
Default 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.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 04:55 PM   #8
greynotsoold
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 949
vCash: 500
Default 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.
greynotsoold is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 04:57 PM   #9
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 11,546
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor View Post
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.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 05:03 PM   #10
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,381
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
Langford called Ketchel "a good man that he couldn't knockout in 6 rounds." I think that sums it up.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 05:30 PM   #11
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

did the rematch ever come close to being made?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 05:36 PM   #12
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,013
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
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.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 05:42 PM   #13
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default 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?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 05:45 PM   #14
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,381
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Very possible.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 06:18 PM   #15
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,013
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Ketchel v Langford: 1910 20 rounds for the MW title.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
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?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013