Than start a thread on who beat better fighters. Its Fitzsimmons by a MILE and you know it. On film, Fitz looks better than Ketchel. Its Ketchel who was less scientific. While I think Ketchel could hit ( not in Fitz's league ), I don't see him as a top 5 ATG great a middle.
Clay, I have read a few reports. In general, it seems Langford was the better in the early to mid portions, and Ketchel had a strong close. I guess you could say something like 4-2 in rounds for Langford, with Ketchel winning the 6th round by a huge margin. You can post more than 10,000 words here. Its a pain as you need to break the thread up into parts of 10,000 words or less.
Good stuff, Ted. There is only so much we can read into these fights of guys with so little footage. I think you got about as far as can reasonably be gotten in this type of forum.
While both men are tricky and styles probably favor Fitzsimmons, I'm going with Langford for most wins in a series of fights. Sam had over 1900 rounds of fighting in his long career, and many of those rounds were against great competition. On some days, I even wonder if Jeffries could have gotten the better of Sam in a series. The experience Langford could bring to the table is almost unmatched.
Isn't that the dream fantasy matchup? Two of the P4P GOATs and best punchers ever trying to stop each other. I think that Fitz has the style advantage, but Langford is a bit more durable. It's extremely close.