Stanley Ketchel vs Harry Greb

Clay Moyle says Langford weighed 178lbs to Ketchel's159lbs.
Langford wrote a rebuttal to an article Bob Edgren wrote about the fight saying this .
"Dear Mr Edgren I am always glad to see you or any other person giving Stanley Ketchel a boost.He deserves .Your boost for the late Stanley Ketchel read all right,excepting for the part where you said he nearly knocked me out in our six rounder .To be real frank with you,I will say that you are greatly mistaken,for the simple reason that he never had a chance.
I copuld say much,mush more but rest most assuredly, I told you a mouthful
Respectvely yours .Sam Langford." New York Evening World 3rd November 1916.Taken frorm Clay Moyle's excellent biography of Sam Langford.

 

Pass.

 

Geb doesn't stop Ketchel imo, but he does outpoint him.

 

I find Moyles claim that Langford weighed 178 pounds questionable. First it was a catchweights fight, no weigh in was conducted. Second for Langford to have come in at 178 he would have been roughly twenty pounds over Ketchel. Thats a huge difference in weight and wouldnt go unnoticed yet only one paper Ive seen mentioned that Langford looked bigger "by ten pounds" but given that Langford was a shorter, barrel chested guy this isnt unusual. Finally, during this period Langford was fighting in the high 150s to mid 160s. He went up as high as 170 to fight Jeanette. Packing on another 8 pounds on top of that he would have been noticeably bigger and noticeably out of shape and yet he was said to have been in perfect condition when he fought Ketchel. I would take with a grain of salt an unofficial weight stated by a single newspaper without a weigh in. If every other first hand source gave that weight itd be one thing but none did. Not sure what the point of Langford's reply to Edgren was. It supports the contention that Langford was carrying Ketchel. Regardless.

 

The point of Langford 's reply to Edgren was he was wearing the cuffs.Moyle is a big Langford fan, I'd say he genuinely believes Langford was that weight.I don't know his source.

 

Im not sure what your point is vis-a-vis Langford. I originally said that he beat Ketchel without even trying. Most papers had him ahead in their short fight and he wasnt trying because he wanted to get a bigger fight with Ketchel later.

I dont doubt that he believes Langford weighed 178, I just dont. I dont doubt that he found one newspaper that said "Langford said he weighed about 178" or "someone in Langfords camp said he weighed about 178" or "he looked to weigh 178" or some such comment. This wasnt unusual but its not only not official but its as impeachable as it gets. Its no better than hearsay. That would have been the highest recorded weight of Sam's career and the only time he was recorded weighing anywhere near that weight was when he was fighting bigger stronger heavyweights in longer bouts. And yet hes recorded as having been in perfect condition. It wouldnt have been a small matter of conversation that only one paper picked up on that Langford was not only at his career highest weight but that he outweighed Ketchel by a huge amount. Regardless, it doesnt really matter anyway because the initial point still stands. Ketchel never beat anyone even remotely in Greb's class. He certainly didnt prove his superiority over anyone approaching Greb's class. Papke was far and away his best middleweight opponent outside of Langford (and you not only agree that he didnt beat a Langford who was wearing the cuffs but seem to think Langford outweighed him by 20 pounds, meaning he wasnt even a middleweight). He fought Papke four times winning one, getting knocked out, knocking out Papke, and winning a dubious decision. Beyond Papke his opposition level drops off dramatically. If Langford's weight is a big handicap for Ketchel than Greb's would be too. Greb was a naturally bigger man than Ketchel who could comfortably weigh in the mid 160s and not suffer a loss of speed or stamina (in fact he was better at that weight). Ketchel could comfortably weigh in the mid 150s.

 

I'm agreeing with you.lol

 

I have been saying Ketchel's resume is on the thin side for an all time great, but that's not his fault as he died young.

IMO either Langford or Greb would have beaten him soundly.

Ketchel vs Clarke could have been interesting in 1914-1915, assuming Ketchel added as few pounds as he aged.

Some think Ketchel was 170 pounds for Johnson, not buying that one, he looks much lighter.

 

Tough call. It will most likely be a series of fights I would give The edge to Ketchel because he had that equalizer. In a nutshell he has more margin for error.