Langford's Record Against Opponents his Own Size

When he fought Walcott when he was a 21 year old kid. Walcott was far more experienced. It was a remarkable accomplishment.

Everything I read leads me to believe he carried Ketchel to set up a big money rematch for the title ... Ketchel was made for him.

 

its a pain to register, dunno how that site works.

 

I'll take Joe's word as he fought them both multiple times ..

 

Yes but he also showed a bias throughout his life against Johnson as well as illustrating an axe to grind for the fact that Johnson never gave him or Langford or McVey a title shot. Whereas Im not a huge Johnson fan, I merely respect his ability, and I am a huge Langford fan. I think some tend to sell Johnson a little bit short. He had some up and down performances but he also had the size, strength, conditioning, and style to give a lot of guys, particularly smaller men (Langford anyone?) fits.

 

Not according to what I've read. The fight may well have been on the take, but the accounts hardly indicate Langford "toying" with him, even if he was wearing the cuffs.

Langford himself sung Ketchell's praises.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=2051,4190237&dq=langford+ketchell&hl=en

 

There is so much hyperbole about the Ketchel/ Langford match, i take most opinions with a grain of salt...for example ,many years ago i read an article where at a dinner years after ketchel's killing, Phil. Jack O'brien told Ketchels brother' Your brother was the greatest fighter I ever fought ",and O'brien fought everybody...For what it's worth...

 

burt im curious where did you read this? Ive never heard it before, i find it really hard to beleive that Sam steered clear of anyone personally.

 

getting shot dead has that effect on you.

 

This is my conclusion too.

 

According to Clay's book, Langford weighed 178 to Ketchel's 159 in their six- rounder.

Could Langford have cut down to the middleweight limit for a title bout?

 

B,I have read this opinion many times in the past from various old time
writers..they concluded that Langford was not looking to meet the
young Jack Dillon [who was ?]..They had ample opportunities to meet.
Jack Dillon, was avoided by many larger fighters also...Not for nothing
was jack dillon called the " Giant Killer "...he earned it !

 

Sam Langford was one of the best lb for lb ever and to fight with a great like Walcott showed the potential of things that were coming.

I spoke to a few old timers about Ketchel and they all said make no mistake about it. Stanley Ketchel could hit like a mule-kick and both he and Sam were strong at that weight. Nat Fleischer held both men in high esteem but felt Stan would have done a lot more had he lived.

I do not believe the cuff story because Ketchel was a formidable man and feared no-one and he did fight Jack Johnson. Fate is what screwed up the rematch and there would have surely been a rematch if Sam had won.

Too much is made of avoidance and such by revisionist . Langford,Ketchel were hard core old school tough-guys and talented men from the school of hard knock boxing.

I certainly think Langford would not be an easy fight for Johnson and although Sam was successful at that weight I think his best weight would have been at 168-175 to fit his stocky 5"6ish frame

Langford is one of my favorite fighters and we will never see the likes of him again because that era no-longer exists nor the environment. I also was always a big fan of Stanley Ketchel, shame he died so young we never know the levels he would have reached. Then there was the great Harry Greb and Bob Fitzsimmons who were all freaks in one way or another

These men were all Super-greats