Sam Langford V Stanley Ketchel?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Fergy, Jul 17, 2020.


  1. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    28,302
    34,030
    Jan 8, 2017
    Apparently in 1910, the great Sam Langford carried Ketch in a no dec fight, with an understanding that Langford would get a Crack at his title in Nevada. Stanley was shot dead six months later.
    OK, so Ketchel sticks to his word and gives him a chance a couple of months later. How does this alter middle weight and boxing history?
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,073
    27,913
    Jun 2, 2006
    Langford beats him and reigns until he
    puts on weight and goes after the big boys.
     
  3. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas FRANKINAUSTIN

    28,134
    34,395
    Jul 24, 2004
    According to Clay Moyle, Langford outweighed Ketchel by at least 30 pounds for that fight. Rather than brag about Sam carrying Ketchel, how about giving the Michigan Assassin some props for getting in the ring with a guy that Jack Johnson avoided like the plague, fixed or not.
     
  4. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,073
    27,913
    Jun 2, 2006
    Moyle states Langford was 178lbs Ketchel159lbs=19lbsadvantage to Langford.page 132 .
     
    Reinhardt likes this.
  5. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas FRANKINAUSTIN

    28,134
    34,395
    Jul 24, 2004
    I'm bad arithmetic. Ok, a 19 pound advantage. That's basically a LHW vs a MW.
     
  6. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,073
    27,913
    Jun 2, 2006
    Yes it is,Id take Langford at level weights myself though.
     
    Clinton likes this.
  7. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

    8,584
    11,087
    Oct 28, 2017
    Ketchell was basically done at that point. Earlier would have been interesting
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  8. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,073
    27,913
    Jun 2, 2006
    Agreed
     
    Clinton likes this.
  9. Knights107

    Knights107 Member Full Member

    450
    211
    Aug 13, 2015
    Langford..
    In 1910 still great
     
  10. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas FRANKINAUSTIN

    28,134
    34,395
    Jul 24, 2004
    Oh I agree 100%, however could Langford reduced weight to 160? I know he fought at lower weights early on, but he started to pack on the
    pounds as he went for more and more HW fights. I mean he was fighting Flynn and Jeanette and other big guys the same year!
     
  11. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,964
    20,547
    Sep 15, 2009
    Someone with the lack of defence that Ketchel employed, would seriously struggle against a man who is probably simultaneously the hardest P4P puncher of all time and the best counter puncher of all time.
     
  12. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    28,302
    34,030
    Jan 8, 2017
    So Langford would have battered Ketch easily at that point Iyo? Does it change his legacy quite a lot if he picked up the middleweight title do you think?
    I've a lot of respect for Sam anyway so to me it doesn't change how I view him, but idk, how things could have turned out differently.
     
  13. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    79,964
    20,547
    Sep 15, 2009
    It hopefully means he doesn't die blind, homeless and forgotten.
     
    mcvey and Clinton like this.
  14. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    28,302
    34,030
    Jan 8, 2017
    Yes that would be nice, unfortunately even winning a world title is no guarantee for a rich happy ending.
     
    Clinton likes this.
  15. FrankinDallas

    FrankinDallas FRANKINAUSTIN

    28,134
    34,395
    Jul 24, 2004
    Whereas Ketchel lived fast, died young and left a good looking corpse.
     
    lufcrazy likes this.