Robert James Fitzsimmons vs. Samuel E. Langford

I get the impression that Langford was a bit better.

Dangerous prediction of course!

When you look at their knockouts, Fitz was absolutely deadly, but he generally relied upon a beat down, or a combination.

Langford was probably more dangerous with a single punch, (factor in the gloves as you will) than any single heavyweight in history!

 

Though Fitz was more consistent in getting the KO in his big fights, the main exception being against Gardner where his hands were injured, and against Jeffries where he was just overmatched. Whereas Langford went the distance fairly often in his big fights, even ones where he wasn't giving up weight. Plus Fitz was generally more consistent, though there's a case that's largely because of Langford fighting too often.

 

I mentioned this as one of my 6 ideal all-time fights.

Fitz would be an incredible opponent but Langford must be installed as the favorite. Langford had overcome Ketchel at Middleweight and Harry Wills himself and Heavy, wheras Fitzsimmons best win at Middleweight is Nonpariel and Heavyweight is Tom Sharkey. Still a great resume, but I'd pick Langford due to the superiority.

 

Fitz knocked out Corbett with 1 body blow and Sharkey with 1 left hook

 

While I'd rank Ketchel ahead of Dempsey, I don't think you can compare Langford edging a ND against Ketchel, which should maybe be a NWS D, since the papers were fairly split, with Fitz's complete domination of Dempsey.

 

7 newspapers had it Langford whilst 4 had it Ketchel, I do believe that would be declared a newspaper decision for Langford, no?

 

It actually sounds like Fitzsimmons fought Dempsey under rather unfair conditions too, he had to weigh in at ringside in fighting clothes at 154Ibs, he apparently was was 1Ib over at 6 o'clock on the morning of the fight, and so had to do a workout to make weight.

 

According to a poll, but Senya found 8 that gave it for Ketchel, on the boxrec wiki, and is of the opinion it should be considered a draw. I'm not really knowledgable enough on the specifics to say won way or the other, but it atleast seems it was close, and given the short nature of the fight, not very conclusive. Plus Langford came in above the Middleweight limit, whereas Fitz had to make 154 in the fighting clothes.

 

Eh, id still consider the fight a toss up. I rank Fitz 10th p4p and Langford 4th, so there isn't a great divide between the two. I just stated that Langford would be the favorite

 

Had a look through a few papers now, and it seems it was close, with Ketchel being more aggressive, while Langford was cleverer, either being a draw or Langford just edging it, but a longer fight was needed to settle it.

 

Toss up

 

TOUGH ONE, but I gotta go with Sammy.

 

50/50 Id I had to pick I'd go with Fitz, as he flattened many men and was essentially only beat by Jeffries for a nearly 15-year run. That is excellent consistency.

Langford was not an easy man to stop but his defense wasn't good and he went down far more than I initially realized after researching some of his fights.