Did Langford really take it easy on Ketchel??

Ketchel fought at 160,Langford 190-200 for a lot of his fights...Ketchel weighed 156 to 170 for the Johnson fight, Ketchel still dropped johnson as sneaky as it was....still Sam Langford was one of my favorite fighters and so was Ketchel....Langford carried 190 to 200..I think Stanley was mostly a puncher....Langford was crafty but a bigger man.....I heard storys of Ketchels power but at 160 it could be argued but, I still think Stanley was the puncher at 160...Langford did mostly everything else better ...Stanley was taller but Sam was bigger

 

Ketchel does get underated his resume is very good especially considering how young he died. However against a fighter like Fitz who has so much power and accuracy and was a great counter puncher Bob would probably batter Stanley.

 

This is what they said. Too add a bit more, Langford wasn't small. He was very compact, and strong.

Back in those days 6 round matches could be viewed as something less than a real boxing match. Indeed a real fight back then went at least 15 rounds, more often than not 20.

I tend to believe both fighters did not go all out, except for Ketchel who did very well in the 6th round. If this was a high stakes 20 round match, Langford winning in, perhaps before 10 rounds are up.

Ketchel might be the victim of being on film when he was out matched vs Johnson, or hurt vs Papke, but I really think he was one of the least skilled HOF fame guys on film, and not to impressive body wise either.