Burns, Ketchell and Langford.

Good to see you posting!:good

I'll go with Langford.
Langford said Ketchel wasn't half as good as he was made out to be.
I believe Langford took it easy on him in their fight.
Langford could box a bit and hit like thunder, one of the greatest punchers ever,you could knock him down and quite a few did, but keeping him there was a different story.

His Kryptonite was tall, rangy boxers with good fast jabs,that and the fact that, probably as he became dissilusioned, he wasn't always in shape.

Burns was fast on his feet and at getting into range, he was a savvy box-fighter, especially good at close-quarters, he also packed a very good punch in his right cross. One of his chief assets was his self confidence and quick brain.
An unfairly maligned fighter today,imo.
I may be swimming against the tide ,but I'm not convinced that Ketchel could beat Burns
Ketchel was pure wide swinging power on 2 legs , he looks very open on the little film we have ,and heavyweight Johnson had no trouble beating him to the punch,which indicates his handspeed wasn't too special.
But he made up for it by his absolute savagery in the ring, he enjoyed putting hurt on his opponents and was prepared to wade through their shots to do so, very brave guy ,but really an attack dog.

He obviously had serious power, probably on a par with most of the heavies of his day,and he carried it all through his fights.
Great stamina ,[until he fell foul of the dope and syphillis,]courage and will to win, these made him a very dangerous man for any fighter to face.
I see him as a bit of a Comet, soaring dramatically skywards then ,when he reached his zenith ,sharply beginning to descend.

Langford 1
A tie for 2nd place.

 

Why is it that it is seldom noted today that when Sam Langford an immortal was about
twelve pounds heavier than the middleweight Stanley Ketchel in 1910. Tham as he was known was a lightheavyweight in that fight, whilst Ketchel below 160 pounds, was by this time period April ,1910 a shot fighter [no pun intended]...Five months later Stanley while recuperating at a friends ranch, was fatally shot and killed by one Walter Dipley.
My point is for ANY middleweight who ever lived to even hold his own with the 12 pound
heavier Sam Langford was a feat unto itself. Today modern posters rush to judgement
demeaning the greatness of the Michigan Assassin based on two clips of Ketchel with the
powerful heavyweight Jack Johnson, and a film with Billy Papke a tough hombre for any middleweight...Were all the great boxing writers who called Ketchel the greatest middleweight ever [I have Greb], all delusional in their high evaluation of Ketchel ?
I think not...

 

It depends if you think the Langford fight was kosher I suppose.

 

Matt, good point you make. the forum says "CLASSIC", meaning fighters
of the past as well as today's fighters...Yes boys and girls there were great fighters before the advent of television, take it from me. ..

 

Well to you and I Burt the 60's were only yesterday

 

I am not so sure of Ketchell's weight being so low for the Langford fight. I am sure i have read a few times, around this period, that Ketchell was finished as a middleweight and was going to campain as a heavyweight.

I understand and agree with you about how hard it is to dismiss so many people who thought Ketchell was the greatest middleweight ever. But really, the way he was so outclassed by Johnson (even if you were to give him credit for the KD), i have trouble seeing him there. Still, i suppose Langford and Burns were both as equally outclassed by Johnson. Langford has the pre prime argument but realistically i suppose the real reason is simply that Johnson was that good. I expect Ali would have outclassed Monzon and Wlad would outclass Hopkins. And Dempsey would outclass Greb.... Oh oh shouldnt have said that.

Anyway, back to the topic, I think that these would be three great fights and a 1-1-1 decision is well within the possibilities. But, if forced to make a pick, I say Burns beats Langford in the first round, on the strength of Langford underestimating him and taking a little lightly and not showing up in the greatest of shape. I then see Burns beating Ketchell due to him being able to stand up to a heavyweight punch and being the straighter puncher than Ketchell. Good close fight though.


For the record, whilest picking Burns to beat Langford in this fantasy fight, i think that if Langford was chosen to fight him, instead of Johnson, Langford would have edged the win on the basis of him (like johnson) having the greater desire to train and win the world championship.

 

I see blue water between Langford and the other two.

 

We discuss fighters from pre-television more than any other period in history.

 

I would pick Langford but wouldnt be surprised to see Burns come out on top or at least second place.

 

Tommy Burns for his size and weight was a dangerous hitter with a great right cross.
He is sadly forgotten by many on this forum because of his debacle with the much
bigger and stronger heavyweight Jack Johnson. Noah Brusso was a damn good fighter
for his weight...

 

Langford by most accounts held back against Ketchell in the hope of setting up a big money rematch for the middleweight title. I like Sam over Burns as well. I like Burns over Ketchell. I think he was stronger, faster, a better hitter and had a better chin.

 

good points BB

 

3 tough fighters, Burns underrated but for his size a rough dude, Ketchel proved his greatness and Langford is also one of my favorites but gets deserved props on ESB.