Ketchel vs. Langford consensus opinion?

Ketchel reportedly refused this fight and was relectant to meet him

 

From the article I read it sounded like Langford has the better of the fight. I read he bloodied Ketchel's face and Ketchel mostly stuck to the body.

 

If there is no video, it doesn't matter. If I can't watch something, I can't give a credible account.

 

Langford was the better in the six round fight. Ketchel was game.

Here's the fight report.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...7143BE733A2575BC2A9629C946196D6CF&oref=slogin

 

Dpw471,

You're welcome.

 

Langford hinted later that he did carry Ketchel.

Either way it seems likley that Ketchel would have defended the middleweight title against Langford had he lived. The peices were all in place.

 

Too bad for Langford, he probably would have won the title.

 

"Poor Stan. He went to his grave thinking he could beat ole Sam"

Sam Langford

 

Langford had a way with words. I think he would have TKO'd Ketchel had the fight been a greater distance.

Langford on film has skills up close or at a distance. Good speed. Good power. Great toughnss.

Ketchel was more of a wild swinger / tough man. The news read says it was mostly Langford until the final round.

 

One Pennsylvania newspaper wrote this the next day:

Local sporting writers and fight fans are divided as to the winner of the Ketchel-Langford six round fight before the National A. C. last night. Of the five morning papers two declare Langford was the winner, one gives the fight to Ketchel for his sixth round rally and two declare it a draw.

 

Philadelphia Inquirer two days after the fight one author wrote this:

It is difference of opinion that makes horse racing, baseball, fighting and other forms of sport possible. If there is any one who is skeptical about the truth of this just let him read the headlines over the descriptions of the Langford-Ketchell bout as printed in the various papers of this city and New York yesterday. In his long and fashionable career on the turf the Old Sport can recall no sporting event which evoked such varying opinion as that little frolic between the Boston Tar Baby and the Michigan Assassin at the national on Wednesday night. Every possible shade of opinion was expressed, and no two of the critics, even if they agreed as to the winner, agreed upon the extent by which he won. According to some, "Ketchell gave Langford a terrific beating;" according to others, "Langford outpointed Ketchel;" still others declared that "A draw would have been about the proper decision," while others intimated pretty strongly that the bout was a fake. One critic noted for his carefulness and thoroughness declared that "Ketchel landed the greater number of clean blows," while another critic equally careful and thorough maintained that "Langford landed the greater number of punches," and there you are.

 

Report and comment from The Washington Post, April 30, 1910.

LANGFORD IS 'LENIENT'
Experts Claim Negro "Pulls"
Punches Against Ketchel.
WHITE MAN LOSING POWER
.Ed Cole in Hew York Telegram, Says
Ketchel Is not the fighter he was a
Year Ago, and Must Take Good Care
of Himself—Langford May Meet "Assassin"
on Coast in longer Mill.
Following out the opinion of "Honest
John" Kelly regarding the Ketchel-
Langford flght, as published exclusively
in The Post yesterflay morning, the
New Tork Herald prints this:.. - :
"Few close judges of boxing who can
tell the difference between sincere
flghtlig and shaniming thought that
Sam Langford, the Boston negro, did
his best in his six-round engagement
with Stanley Ketchel, Wednesday night.
If there were parts of the bout that
made sharp-eyed spectators skeptical,
Lanigford's conduct in the sixth round
convinced them that the negro had no
intention of doing anything else, except
letting Stanley stay the limit:
."At the end of the fifth round Langford
had the advantage by a substantial
margin. He showed that he could
hit Ketchel any time he pleased, and
at the same time parry his rival's fast
leads. He gave flashes of what he
could do by occasionally dodging in
and out. landing blow after blow;-while
Ketchel was so confused with these
tactics that he could only blindly swing.
Pulls His Punches
"Then came the sixth, where Ketchel
made his theatrical stand and Langford
pulled his punches. Sam simply refused to flght and let
Ketchel rush
him all over the ring. This was the
sensational rally of Ketchel. Langford
was by no means the only party to the
holding. Several times, especially in
the first two rounds, Ketchel hesitated
and then held back swings that might
have caused damage.
'It probably will not be long before
the combatants will ba matched to flght
a long- distance battle on the Pacific

Ed Cole, In the New York Telegram,
writes; ' .—Seems to be a difference of opinion in
regard to the outcome of the fight betwen
Stanley Ketchel and "Sam" Langfdrd.

There are all shades, of differences,
from wild enthusiasm over Ketchei's
"victory" to a dispassionate analysis
of the flght by a staid Quaker expert,
who gives the result to Langford.;
I side with the gentleman from Philadelphia.
The negro outpointed Ketchel
in the early part of the flght and if he
had sailed In and tried to finish Ketchel
the chances are that he might have put
him out.
One thing Is certain—Ketchel was very
anxious to ascertain after the fight was
over what folks thought about It; and undoubtedly
put forth every ounce that he
had in him in the sixth round, hoping
to make up for any deficiencies which he
had shown prior to then.
Fight Favors Langford.
In the description of the flght by
rounds, even by those who favor Ketchel,
I can't see anything but Langford all
the way through, until It comes to the
last round, where the white man is supposed
to have made that terrific assault
which took Langford off his feet and
saved Stanley's bacon.