Did Langford really take it easy on Ketchel??

I've heard that too. Although I've also read that Sam was surprised and couldn't handle Ketchel's sheer aggression and that's why he looked so lethargic. Either way Sam later said that Ketchel was the best fighter he had ever fought. (or was it best white fighter he ever fought? dont remember)

 

I tend to think a lot of these old "myths" about the old-time fights are largely bull****. They start off as talk, and then snowball because
1) there's no film of the fights to dispute it, and
2) the people who actually saw the fights, or were around at the time, are dead.

Irresponsible quasi-historians like Bert Sugar perpetuate these myths in their writings, rather than do their own research and simply report on the facts and contemporary accounts.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F06EED7143BE733A2575BC2A9629C946196D6CF

 

My understanding was they agreed to a no decision which increase the hype for a rematch which would be for the title, but Ketchel died soon after.

 

Sam Langfords own testimony suggests that he took it easy on Ketchel but we cannot be certain.

After Ketchel died he said:

"Poor old Stan. He went to his grave thinking he could beat me".

 

But didn't he also say Ketchel was the best (white) fighter he ever faced, and that at one point in their fight Ketchel had him out on his feet and ready to get KO'd? Langford seemed to talk out of both sides of his mouth about Ketchel.

 

The bottom line is that Langford took the truth to his grave.

 

Of course. He was setting up a big money fight on the West Coast for the title ... let's get real ... Ketchel was a great fighter but no where near Langford ....

 

I'd say probably. Keep in mind that not only was it a no-decision, it was also scheduled for a mere 6 rounds. A.J. Liebling once asked Sam if he had indeed carried Stan, and Sam replied thus:

"He was a good man. I couldn't knock him out in 6 rounds."

There were more mysteries and shenanigans than we know in bouts in those days. You can't trust much -not the fighter's reports and not the newspaper accounts. There were untold numbers of times that sports writers got kickbacks from fighters/managers for good press and slanted accounts. We should keep in mind also the racial intimidation factor. Sam was in a hostile environment and you can bet that only the boldest of black boxign fans would venture out to see a mixed race bout. Many black fighters would think twice about turning on the heat against a popular white fighter. In a crowded ballroom. Where there's no escape.

 

I often wonder why Stanley Ketchel gets so underated today. I tend to believe this fight was on the level, both gave it everything they had...langford underestimated ketchel. he thought he was just another white pushover, but boy was he wrong! they fought a dead even war for 6 rounds..sam might have gott the better of it(he was also bigger) but i dont think langford wanted to tangle with man eater ketchel after that. Alot of posters here think bob fitzimmons was the best puncher, but me thinks ketchel would eat him alive, then spit out his bones.

 

I devote an entire chapter to the Kechel-Langford fight in my book 'Sam Langford, Boxing's Greatest Uncrowned Champion'. If anyone would like me to email them a Word document containing all of the various newspaper reports of that contest email me at

This content is protected

and I'll send them to you in an email as a Word document attachment. It would be too long to post them all here.

 

From the accounts I read it was an even matched fight...Middleweights a re faster than some heavys and can punch hard for 160...a lot of heavys mid size dont want to spar with middles because they have speed,power and sometimes better skill levels...In this case Langford was a big boned guy but Ketchel was a tough MF..and hit harder... Langford was a feared black man, feared no one and did not tank....Ketchel was a tough white man and feared no one....stories like a guy was holding back are exaggerated...like Lamotta would not fight BUrley...**** he fought Robinson and Satterfield....makes for good stories

 

"In this case Langford was a big boned guy but Ketchel was a tough MF..and hit harder... "

Huh? Ketchel hit harder than Langford? What do you base that statement on?

 

Stanley Ketchel did not hit harder than Sam Langford ... Jim Flynn, Harry Wills and Joe Jeannette among others said Langford was the hardset hitting fighter they ever fought and they were heavyweights. Flynn said he hit harder than Dempsey ...