Burns, Ketchell and Langford.

If we are picking a winner out of the 3, I would have to go with Langford who has the credentials in the higher weight class and is considered an ATG heavyweight non-champ, Burns had a good history and I would not underrate him despite his poor but courageous loss against Johnson, i think he acquits himself well against Langford in a losing effort.

As far as Ketchel, he was a middleweight mainly and he would hold his own against anyone on his weight turf but moving up the odds would be stacked against him, mean and sneaky as we seen vs Johnson (cuff deal maneuver) but Burns was Champ and Langford a legend barring weight and size

 

I stopped right there.

13 days before the contest Langford weighed 166. In reality neither us nor Fleischer know what Langford and Ketchel weighed. To categorically state that Ketchel was outweighed 12 pounds based on what Nat Fleischer wrote in 1946 is irresponsible. Regardless, I dont care what either fighter weighed Id pick Langford knock Ketchel loopy.

 

Our buddy, Clay Moyle, seems to think that Langford held back for another more lucrative match in his bio of Landford. Can't remember what he wrote about the weights.

A Burns-Ketchell match-up would have been swell.

 

Until some one else comes along I will go with Mr Moyle .:good

 

Yeah, hopefully he chimes in...

 

Clay goes with the 19lb discrepancy between Langford and Ketchel in his book too (178 to 159).

 

So ,you my LORD to state that "I am categorically IRRESPONSIBLE because I posted in a reply to you QUOTING the weight Nat Fleischer
gave to Langford in his book that I purchased in 1946 for $1.50.? I
wrote that Ketchel was about 12 pounds lighter than Langford, NOT 19 pounds lighter than Fleischer had in his book, so therefor I am
irresponsible...At any rate I, and even you my highness ,are beholden to information we glean from our predecessors decades ago...Have a good day, and sayonara...

 

Regardless how many pounds Sam Langford weighed more than a fading Stanley Ketchel
in 1910 months before Ketchel's death, Stanley was one brave S.O.B. and should get his due...
Picture today or before a Marvin Hagler, tackling a powerful lightheavyweight like Quai ?
Well that was what guts Ketchel had, and it must be a reminder of his braveness and greatness...

 

Sam Langford vs Stanley Ketchel * Chapter XIX

http://www.joejennette.com/MyFightingLife19.html

[MY FIGHTING LIFE: The Life and Fighting Career of Sam Langford] by Sam Langford Himself * 1924 MENKE/SHAHBAZIAN * 36 Short Chapters

http://www.joejennette.com/MyFightingLife.html

 

I really dont see how anyone could possibly argue with Langford's summary that was just posted, unless you want to take issue with him taking the first few rounds easy. Very, very interesting post.

 

How can we assess such match ups without extensive quality film.

 

Haven't checked out this forum in ages. On the subject of a possible Langford-Burns matchup: "On December 26. 1908, Johnson and his Australian trainer Duke Mullins were in the dressing room preparing for a bout (against Burns) when Johnson asked where Burns was "housed." Mullins told him not to worry about Burns. "Worry about him," Johnson replied, "why I know a few middleweights who could beat him. Langford was no doubt one of the middleweights Johnson was referring to. Once, while training Johnson for the bout with Burns, Duke asked him how he thought little Sam would do against Burns. "It wouldn't be a match, Langford would finish him off in no time," was Johnson's reply. (Source: Duke Mullins)

 

All tough guys ... Langford was a great fighter who clearly carried Ketchel in the hopes of a large money title bout ... in his prime at his best weight , say 168 - 175 he was an all time pound for pound great and perhaps the greatest two handed puncher of all time .. Burns is underrated , was strong and tough with some tricky game and a heck of a punch for a light heavyweight .. Ketchel leaves me highly unimpressed on film but he must have been a tiger of some sort at 160.

 

In a series of fights, all in their primes for each fight, say seven times each, I believe none of them would go 0-14, against the other two, or even 0-7 against any of the other single opponents. With that said, I would expect to see Sam Langford come out with the best overall record of the three. I am somewhat undecided about who would be second best. If pressed I would lean Burns for second place. All three were very tough fighters!

Nat Fleischer saw all three of them, and I believe I have ample reason to believe he would also say Langford would win the series. I can see the human faults that Mr. Fleischer had, and I certainly do not agree with everything he said or believed, but I still have tons of respect for him (and what he saw, knew, and did for Boxing)!