How did the Ketchel-Langford fight go ?

[Unforgiven]

It was a 6-rounder I think.
What occurred ?
What did they weigh ?
Was Langford a bigger man than Ketchel ?

Any info appreciated.

[McGrain]

Ketchel was obviously taller, but also out-reached Sam by a touch. In the end though, Langford with that giant chest, held a reported 20lb weight advantage. You have to say - fuck taking on Langford in circumstances like that.

There were plenty of people (amongst them Fleischer, who attended the fight) that thought that the six round distance was an admission by Ketchel (or his people) that he wasn't equal to the task. Ketchel was seen as a distance fighter - a guy who excelled over 20, 25 rounds. Langford was basically baited into a six rounder by Ketchel's people who floated the idea of a longer fight later. But that's the only source i've ever seen as regards the possibility of a longer fight, I think.

According to Moyle, Sam Langford decided when this idea of the longer fight was floated, that he would "fix" the fight - the he would make it "a good fast fight with no clear winner" or something to that affect. Supposedly he was in possession of a telegram which said something to the affect of "yeah, big fight later on if nobody gets ktfo this time". It's all reading as a bit dodgy tbh.

Early on there was some booing and shit and people seemed grumpy about what they were seeing. One interesting thing is that it was claimed that Langford was able to neutralise the Stanley shift. Who knows? If he had, he'd have been the first.

What else you want to know?

[Unforgiven]

Thanks.

I'm just trying to gauge how these guys shape up, head-to-head, and in a pound-for-pound sense. I didn't quite realize Langford might have been 20 pounds bigger. I tend to think of Ketchel as quite a moderate-sized middle though, not a big one straining to make weight. Although I guess he was a growing lad for much of his career. I don't expect Stanley to have the beating of Sam.

The possibility that it wasn't a full effort on Langford's part, that he was holding back a little, complicates things. It's often the case with fights from that era.
It keeps me guessing, can Ketchel hang with Langford ? at all ?

[lufcrazy]

In all honesty I can't read too much into any fights below 10 rounds unless they end in knockout.

Seems more like a taster event than anything else and given the give closeness of the 6 round bout it must be concluded that ketchel could indeed hand with Sam.

[McGrain]

Not at these respective weights. Maybe around the kind of weight he was when he took on Johnson it would have been a different story. But to be fair you are basically talking about Archie Moore versus Marvin Hagler, here.

[McGrain]

I mean, I consider it valid to ask, "could Jack Dempsey hang with 179lb Sam Langford"? Never mind a middleweight.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Not at these respective weights. Maybe around the kind of weight he was when he took on Johnson it would have been a different story. But to be fair you are basically talking about Archie Moore versus Marvin Hagler, here.

Originally Posted by McGrain

I mean, I consider it valid to ask, "could Jack Dempsey hang with 179lb Sam Langford"? Never mind a middleweight.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

What weights have we got for this fight ?

[McGrain]

159-179 by Moyle.

[Unforgiven]

Respect to Ketchel.

[Surf-Bat]

It's generally held that Langford was holding back on Ketchel. I recall reading that there was a bit of sarcastic winking and nudging among the sportswriters after that bout. Like "Suuuuure Ketchel went the distance". I think most knew that in a real fight Langford slaughters Ketchel.

Langford was considered the bane of the division, avoided by all. This has been printed here several times. It was written in 1910:


I.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” said Stanley K.,
“Britt has taken me away
And I’m signed to do a play.
Then I’m going to the hay.
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

II.
“Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” said Jack the Twin.
“I am careful of my chin
And I’m pretty near all in,
And suicide’s a sin.
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

III.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” is Papke’s wail,
“I’m a lily white and pale
And my life is not for sale;
Why I’d sooner got to jail.
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

IV.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford
“Not I,” said Kid McCoy;
“I’m a pretty game old boy,
But this unrefined employ
I will leave for hoi polloi.
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

V.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” said poor old Fitz.
“Though I’d fight for just six bits,
Still I haven’t lost my wits;
I’ll preserve my speckled mitts.
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.

VI.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” said Hugo Kelly.
“He would pound me to a jelly
And I’d lose some vermicalli.
Not for me. What ta helli?
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

VII.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” said Joe da Grim.
“I no like to fight with him
Cause he shutta up my glim
And da chances are too slim
I’ll notta fight Sam Langford.”

VIII.
Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not I,” Al Kaufman said.
“You are crazy in the head.
Chase yourself and go to bed.
I ain’t anxious to be dead.
I’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

IX.
“Who’ll fight Sam Langford?
“Not us.” The low brows cried.”
And they turned around to hide.
“Nix: the color line is wide,
And we’re going to stay inside.
We’ll not fight Sam Langford.”

[Senya13]

Did anybody look up actual next-day reports to figure who got the newspaper decision? The "poll" that is mentioned at boxrec is actually misleading, and what I read about this or that newspaper giving such and such decision was either conflicting (say, one summary said NY Sun voted for Langford, while NY Sun actually voted a draw, or Philadelphia Press voting either for Langford or a draw), or it was actually a wire in one of New York newspapers, instead of them having their own report. So far, the majority decision seems to be in favor of Ketchel, from what I read.

[Longhhorn71]

A least things 2 guys had the huevos to get in the ring with each other.

(see Pac vs PBF non-fight)

[burt bienstock]

Who actually won the 6 rd bout is secondary to the fact that Stanley Ketchel was very likely a "shot' fighter in April, 1910. Soon after this bout Ketchel allegedly on opium
went to a Conway, Missouri ranch to recuperate from his excesses and as we know was shot dead by Walter Dipley , six months after the fight with the 20 pound or so
heavier Sam Langford...As McGrain posted, think a MW Hagler against an Archie Moore...As a MW under 160 pounds, few if any were better than the prime Michigan Assassin...

[LittleRed]

I don't have.the book in front of me but I thought Langford wanted to carry Ketchel but Stanley was like a broken elevator- he only went one way. So Langford ended up actually having to fight him with Ketchel doing fairly well fending him off.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Not at these respective weights. Maybe around the kind of weight he was when he took on Johnson it would have been a different story. But to be fair you are basically talking about Archie Moore versus Marvin Hagler, here.

I favour ketchel in a 20 round mw title fight.