Sam Langford vs. Bob Fitzsimmons

Langford by KO

 

could go either way but ill say fitz piston like punches eventually take sam out

 

Forgive me, but sarcasm does not translate well into a message board. Are you being serious here? Fitz is much better than Ketchel.

 

how so? Ketchel is grossely underated here, while fitz is horribly overated. fitz had a bareknuckle style, while ketchel was much more modern with his style, he was more of a jack dempsey like fighter. I think ketchells resume is very underated...sam langford at the peak of his powers could do nothing to the lighter ketchell.


I think ketchel would have knocked fitz out. ketchel was more aggresive, faster, and hit harder than fitz.

 

"I think ketchells resume is very underated...sam langford at the peak of his powers could do nothing to the lighter ketchell."

Huh? See: http://www.boxingherald.com/news/117/ARTICLE/1377/2008-07-31.html

 

Sounds like it was a good fight, even if Langford was holding back. You also have to take into account he was a light-heavyweight fighting a middleweight. I feel the author is a little biased towards Langford.

"Ketchel would train and prepare himself for an upcoming fight with Sam McVea in Paris"

That would have been interesting.

 

"I feel the author is a little biased towards Langford. "

Maybe so, but the research I did convinced me he carried Ketchel early in their one fight. I'm convinced he had no desire of doing anything in that fight that might have hurt his chances of obtaining a longer more lucrative match against Ketchel later in the year.

 

If anyone wants it, I have over 91,000 words of information surrounding the Langford-Ketchel fight, mainly from various newspaper articles, that I can forward to them. Just sent me your email address and I'll forward it to you. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, one can only post up to 10,000 words here.

This content is protected

 

I'll take it. Send it to dumbchimps@hotmail.com

Thanks. I look forward to reading your whole book. Biased or not.

 

Sorry, but Fitz is in yet another league than Ketchel in terms of being a puncher. He proved it against the big boys. The more I think about this fight, the more I lean closer to Fitz... but still too close to call.

 

like who? stanley Ketchell knocked down and hurt badly a fully matured and grown ATG 210lb jack jackson.....he also flattened durable big heavyweight dan porky flynn. Fitz was unable to floor jeffries or johnson. knocking out some big uncoordinated turd like ed dunkhorst LOL does not prove he was better vs big men. The papers reported that ketchell was faster than fitzimmons, and I believe ketchell hit harder too....ketchell got his whole body into every punch.....fitz did not have good punching techinque. he threw wide punches bareknuckle style.... ketchell died young so he never got to fully enhance his legacy.

wait so you make fun of sam mcveas style being undermodern in another thread, have u ever watched fitzimmons on film? he is one of the most pathetic looking "great" fighters I have ever seen.

 

jack johnson said stanley ketchell was the hardest hitter he ever faced in the dressing room after there fight.

 

not at all due to the embarrassment of being kd'd by a midget.

and yeah, i'm suprised a 107 yr. old fitz could not kd johnson.

 

"like who? stanley Ketchell knocked down and hurt badly a fully matured and grown ATG 210lb jack jackson.....he also flattened durable big heavyweight dan porky flynn."
Flynn was just out of the middleweight division when he fased Ketchell and stood 5-101/2. Oh and Johnson was 205 for the Ketchell contest.

 

There should be a book release - 'Bob Fitzsimmons: The spindly fellow who could not fight'.

It matters not how Fitzsimmons appears to have fought, he was a deadly fighter by any measure; durable, adaptable and powerful.

There is no fight footage of Harry Greb, but we know he was a fighter of sizable pedigree because of the men he beat. Similarly, we are all aware of who Fitzsimmons plastered, so his worth as a fighting force should not be diminished because he does not look stylistically sound.

If it was easier to harness, you would have seen far more fighters back then adapting that 'stand-up/counter-punching style' with a low guard to encourage leading and shuffling to the side to throw those counter hooks.

A bout with Langford would produce an epic battle for ring centre. Langford was a fighter who was great at starting a fire whereas Fitzsimmons was great at putting them out.

As much as Langford is prone to Fitzsimmons' countering ways, so is Fitzsimmons to the energetic shorter man, who will bore in and punish the available body.

Fitzsimmons can cut, but in this kind of fight, the more calculating Blacksmith may make it count more when he lands the gasping shots.

Langford was a fighter of a unique brawling science, but against a man of such cunning and precision he may find himself suffering like Hagler did against Duran and Leonard.

It's a real hard fight to call. The activity levels are with Langford whereas the money shots would likely come from Fitzsimmons. Bob could cut up but he could also fight through hell, as could Langford.

The perfect test would be to get Langford to fight Joe Choynski and see how he does. Fitzsimmons had a knockdown fest with him that he was about to win as the 6-rounder came to a close.

Langford was reported as, generally, getting the better of Ketchel when their 6-rounder came to a close. Ted Spoon would favour Choynski to do in Ketchel with his straighter striking and better taught discipline.

Knee-jerk reaction says Fitzsimmons for the win.

-It may not appear so on what little film there is of Ruby Robert, but he considered it much harder to fight Jeffries in the first fight when he adopted a 'stand-up' style. Before the Jeffries/Johnson fight, he had encouraged to big Jim to apply the same style, not the crouching one in their rematch, which he claimed is what made him receive so much punishment.