The Evening World scored Langford a *shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the time.

[El Bujia]

Originally Posted by Jorodz

this is a question for everyone on this thread: do you think ketchel was past his prime or that he could have recovered sufficiently to still be the force of old (or even better)?

From what I know, Ketchell was already planning on retirement, as he was already pretty used up both mentally and physically due to a combo of in-ring wear and tear and outside factors such as addictive drug use.

when i first read about ketchel, most of the material i saw felt that he had yet to reach his prime at 24. thoughts?

Typical yellow journalism jotted down well afterwards to propel legends and bring an air of mystique to the topic. Kinda like the Bible.

[Jorodz]

Originally Posted by El Bujia

From what I know, Ketchell was already planning on retirement, as he was already pretty used up both mentally and physically due to a combo of in-ring wear and tear and outside factors such as addictive drug use.

Typical yellow journalism jotted down well afterwards to propel legends and bring an air of mystique to the topic. Kinda like the Bible.

thanks for the post el

beat up any drug dealers lately?

[El Bujia]

Nope, but I've recently joined a gang of roaming Tom Brokaws:

[The Funny Man 7]

Wow brilliant stuff from Sam. I confess I've never really been as interested in his career relative to how much press he gets on this forum but this win seriously intrigues me. I'll have to look to his record more.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by El Bujia

I tend to think the next 30 years for the division was just as good or better. But then I guess noone really reigned supreme in those years save maybe Greb.

Sullivan, Papke and Kelly were the top three when Ketchel swept into the division for real. They also seem, all, to have been top 15 pound for pound types, keep in mind that Palke was number three when Ketchel was number four. Kelly and Sullivan were the 1 and 2. Sullivan seemed to have been pound for pound top 3, 4. Ketchel knocked all of three of these ****ing guys out in one year.

As an aside regarding the thread title, how highly do you rate the Gans win given the circumstances? Gans obviously wasn't in top form, and from I understand (according to Senya) the win has been propped up a lot more since, whereas at the time it wasn't considered nearly as highly. I'm assuming that would have to do with Gans's condition.

That win developed a fair bit of paper. I haven't done anything like the work that Senya has done, but i've had a reasonable look into this fight, and one other fight, the first between Gans and McFadden. Gans-Langford produced just as much paper as Gans-McFadden. Keep in mind that McFadden was white. There was some noise about this fight.

I'd agree that it's bigger in retrospect, but what does that really matter in the final analysis?

Gans was not in condition, but some sources have him being totally out-classed by a teenager. An under-par Pacquiao being out-classed by a 17 year old?

[klompton]

The last letter Ketchel ever wrote talks about how he is through with boxing and has purchased land around Springfield Mo where intends to open a ranch and lumber concern.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I don't see how you can say that Ketchel was his equal when more bystanders considered him beaten than not?


EDIT: Ah, sorry, misread. The weight.

Bit of a reach that Burt, but not the worst thing I ever heard. Langford would have struggled with the weight anyway I guess.

Mc, Stanley Ketchel's fighting prime was abut 154-58 pounds. He was considered by every sportswriter of his time as the greatest middleweight
of his time, [excluding Fitz, a physical freak] and beyond Ketchels time.We today,should place much credence to eyewitnesses who saw the great Ketchel in his prime. A great alltime middleweight who except for 2 films of him we see today,of beating Billy Papke,in 1909 when Stanley broke a bone in his hand,and still won a TWENTY round decision, and of course the fiasco against Jack Johnson ,nine months before Ketchel was shot and killed by Walter Dipley in 1910. We have no films of Ketchel flattening 49 opponents
in his violent career. Therefore we must judge the Michigan Assassin by
his record and the opinions of great boxing writers as Hype Igoe,Damon
Runyon, Bob Edgren, Nat Fleischer,Phil Jack O;Brien, all who saw Ketchel and
praised him to the skies. As I do.
Sam Langford might have been a greater P4P fighter than Ketchel,but not as
a 158 pound middleweight. Langford was a bigger framed fighter, as Archie Moore was a bigger framed fighter than Ray Robinson, of later years.
As posted before Langford had about 12-15 pounds on Ketchel, lest we forget
Cheers M...

[Jorodz]

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

Mc, Stanley Ketchel's fighting prime was abut 154-58 pounds. He was considered by every sportswriter of his time as the greatest middleweight
of his time, [excluding Fitz, a physical freak] and beyond Ketchels time.We today,should place much credence to eyewitnesses who saw the great Ketchel in his prime. A great alltime middleweight who except for 2 films of him we see today,of beating Billy Papke,in 1909 when Stanley broke a bone in his hand,and still won a TWENTY round decision, and of course the fiasco against Jack Johnson ,nine months before Ketchel was shot and killed by Walter Dipley in 1910. We have no films of Ketchel flattening 49 opponents
in his violent career. Therefore we must judge the Michigan Assassin by
his record and the opinions of great boxing writers as Hype Igoe,Damon
Runyon, Bob Edgren, Nat Fleischer,Phil Jack O;Brien, all who saw Ketchel and
praised him to the skies. As I do.
Sam Langford might have been a greater P4P fighter than Ketchel,but not as
a 158 pound middleweight. Langford was a bigger framed fighter, as Archie Moore was a bigger framed fighter than Ray Robinson, of later years.
As posted before Langford had about 12-15 pounds on Ketchel, lest we forget
Cheers M...

so at 158 pounds, you would say ketchel was langfords better? admittedly, langfords prime weight was a touch heavier from my understanding but you would say at the middleweight limit, the michigan assassin was the better?

[goat15]

good win, but gans wasn't properly prepared. he got exposed for taking langford lightly, but take him lightly he did.

[burt bienstock]

Originally Posted by Jorodz

so at 158 pounds, you would say ketchel was langfords better? admittedly, langfords prime weight was a touch heavier from my understanding but you would say at the middleweight limit, the michigan assassin was the better?

J,who is to say how would the 158 pound Sam Langford fared against the prime middleweight Ketchel.? In 1908 Langford fought Joe Jeannette at 165 pounds. He was morphing into a 180-85 pound fighter, and getting down to 158 pounds,against Ketchel in 1909, might have weakened Sam, just as Jake LaMotta,was weakened greatly losing 10 pounds just before his ko at the hands of Ray Robinson in 1951. Take care...

[SLAKKA]

Tip the hat to also to George Barton who stated long ago in his book that Sam was all time number 1 Lt Heavy.

[url]***********.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=9P2PjMDJ4a.Cj14Hp2VOIauz4xA_4271260459_1:64:603&bq=author%3Dgeorge%2520a%2520barton% 26title%3Dmy%2520lifetime%2520in%2520sports[/url]