Langford is overrated

Q How many title chances did he get at Middleweight,Light heavyweight,and Heavyweight?

A. None.

 

Ketchel ko'd the reigning Light heavyweight Champion.

 

All credible boxing historians would disagree with you.

Ketchel dominated, albeit very briefly, one of the strongest middleweight divisions in history. Canelo did not.

Ketchel went 3-1 with Papke, who was a monster.

 

It being one of the strongest middleweight divisions is an extremely subjective argument. Papke reputation is based partially on beating Ketchel in the first place which makes that seem like circular reasoning.

Also how long did Ketchel dominate the division? Not terribly long

 

All arguments about the relative strength of eras are by their very nature, subjective. That doesn't mean they are without merit and in this instance, it's a view held by people whose knowledge of boxing history I suspect vastly outweighs your own.

I don't want to turn this Langford orientated thread into a Ketchel/Canelo debate, so will give you right of last reply and shall not respond to you again.

A 5ft 7ins 17 year old beating an ATG (arguably 120 years later still THE ATG) LW and later in his career dominating series versus multiple world class HWs, is absurdly brilliant, that's my main point.

 

Also seems like he should’ve been 2-2 with Papke

Who cares if Gans was 1-1-1 in the fights leading up to Langford? He was unbeaten since the McGovern fix before a meaningless 6 round loss to Blackburn that he would avenge decisively like 4 times after. They were in the span of a month, 6 round fights against likes of Blackburn and Holly (who he beat in a return bout) who were elite fighters that Gans would beat after Langford. It’s much easier to edge a win or draw over 6 round bout.
I’ve also always found that a weird argument in general since using a random record of someone’s last 3 without context doesn’t reflect how formidable they were at the time. And having plenty of fights under your belt doesn’t automatically mean you’re shopworn or out of your prime, Gans not only had some of his best wins after fighting Langford but they would be unique to his wins BEFORE 1903. He went on to dominate bigger fighters beyond lightweight like Blackburn in every other fight they had as well as Mike Twin Sullivan, Walcott, some more elite lightweights like Jimmy Britt (who got the better of Gans before he fought Langford), Dave Holly, Battling Nelson. Gans went on to beat some great fighters who he couldn’t even beat before Langford, so I find there is no argument to Gans being past it by 1903. Certainly not comparable to how Hopkins ruled the division as a grandpa.

Almost every newspaper article I’ve read on Langford-Walcott suggests Langford should’ve gotten the decision, it’s a case of Greb-Tunney 2 where the spectators overwhelmingly agreed as to who won.

 

Realistically though many of the heavyweights Langford fought were not heavies by todays standards. Plenty of guys Canelo beat would be campaigning at heavyweight in Langfords day. If Jeanette, McVey, and Wills were top heavyweights today and there was no cruiserweight division I expect Alvarez (and plenty of other middleweights, light heavyweights) would move up and fight them.

By referring to them as HWs you could give the impression they are comparable to todays heavyweights which IMHO isn't really a fair comparison.

 

You seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding the context of these fights, from when he was a teenager beating future hallo of famers, to when he was shot and clinically blind and beating future hall of famers.

Also try to factor in the number of his fights against top opponents, and the time between them.

You have a lot more research to do.

 

Bull****.

Outside of perhaps Joe Louis, you would have to go to the 80s to find fighters who beat more men weighting more than 200lbs.

This is a total non argument.

 

I've always heard of it as a close, competitive fight, at least in RbR scoring. Some sources credit Langford as getting the better of the action while others indicate a decision could've been scored either way. There does seem to be consensus agreement that Langford inflicted more punishment & had Ketchel looking wearier by the time the 6 rounds ended.

Here's a RbR breakdown of the fight from The San Fran Call.

Regardless, even a "draw" in 6 rounds w/ a fighter considered an ATG MW is nothing to sneeze at.

& even if he didn't, just the fact that a young/up-n-coming Langford was credited w/ a draw vs. an already established ATG is still a notable achievement.

 

I believe it was Moyle who portrayed it as a carry job on Sam's part. I'll look into it more.

 

Looking over some of my reports, I'll throw a few out here, but nothing convinces...

Philadelphia Inquirer...

"It was a clean-cut contest from start to finish, and considering the size and weight of the men it was probably the fastest bout ever seen in this city. Both men were trained to the hour, and entered the ring in prime condition. Langford demonstrated that he is not only more clever than his opponent, but he possessed the advantage in reach, timed his blows better and has a punch hard enough to do the business."

Anaconda Standard, byline Philadelphia

"there was little to choose between the men. If anything Langford had a slight advantage but a draw would have been a fair decision."

Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, byline Philly....

"Local sporting writers and fight fans are divided as to the winner of the Ketchel-Langford six round fight... 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."

Weird, because according to round by rounds, Landford lifted Ketchel off the ground with an uppercut in the 6th.

I got to say, I've read 8 next days on the fight and they agree on a few things... it was a lively bout, both were in great shape, Sam destroyed Stanley's proboscis, Stanley pressured and didn't let Sam set, and most say Sam hit harder.