Stanley Ketchel vs Tommy Burns

O my, the great sam langfords word! It must be the gospel! His word over everyones word! When Sam Langford makes a statement, chuck norris sits and listens. lets face it, Sam Langford was shocked to hell with Ketchel's Speed, Power, and ability to land punches at all angles. He underestimated ketchel...ketchel wasnt just another white softie, he was a miniature jack dempsey! Funny how he took ketchel so "lightly" even though some ringsiders scored the bout for ketchel. Why would sam langford risk losing to ketchel even if he did want to take it easy on him?


my opinion: this fight was a classic war between two atgs in there primes going toe to toe for 6 rounds. No other fighters in the world could have gone toe to toe and come out alive against these two! Stanely continues to be the most underrated fighter on ESB. even the older fans on this site, dont give him enough respect! its sickens me!


Ketchel KO 2 Burns

 

I've read some reports of the fight that said Langford didn't follow up on his punches like the could have, so maybe he wasn't going all out, or maybe he was for a while and then switched gears or vice-versa, we'll never know. Though it sounds like it was a great fight and I've read that Ketchel nearly had Langford down and possibly at least once. Langford also said that Ketchel was the best white fighter he ever fought.

 

You are using the old axiom "If A beats B ,he must beat C,this has been proven to be very unreliable .
You beleive Johnson went all out in his fight with Ketchel whereas I am convinced he carried him till Ketchel double crossed him.Johnson knocked Ketchel senseless with ONE punch,Langford was acknowledged a harder hitter than Johnson,so according to your logic Langford would have kod Ketchel.
When the Sullivan and Hugo Kelly fights took place Burns was a MIDDLEWEIGHT,That would NOT be the Burns Ketchel would be facing.If you want to say Match the middleweight Burns against Ketchel ,then I would lean towards Ketchel, but Burns put on a solid 20 lbs as he matured.
Ketchel by contrast was very lean ,at the weigh in with Johnson he wore cowboy boots and an overcoat to disguise the size disparity.
I beleive Burns was a better boxer than Ketchel ,had better foot movement ,better defence and was more accurate with his punches . He also had a hard ko punch in his right hand himself.
Regarding evidence that Hasson has given you what concrete proof have you ? Or is it just word of mouth?
I dont say Godfrey wasnt on the cuffs.
I dont say Langford took it easy against Ketchel ,I say I have read reports that he did.But you need evidence ,as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on the Ketchel Langford fight ,the ONE fight on which most of your basis for rating Ketchel above Burns exists. Common opponents results mean very little.

 

I think Burns wins this, imo. Not because he was HW champ, but he had a very good record from middleweight to heavyweight. He is quite under-rated, but then again, so is Ketchell. Burns went 14 with Johnson, Ketchell was more or less kayoed the first time Johnson quit carrying him...Burns has the greater punch resistance, imo...he was a better boxer, and for being 5'7" he hit as hard as the 6' 200 pounders...it would be a great fight, ending somewhere between 15-20 rounds, Burns winner.

 

The purple prose you use here ,such lines as
"Langford was shocked to hell with Ketchel's speed, power ,and ability to land punches at all angles".
"Langford underestimated Ketchel". This is hyperbole ,personal spin that you have put on the fight, you have no evidence that this was so,it is just your impression,an impression gained from reading a few words about the fight from such sources as Box rec.You have NO FACTUAL BASIS to make these assertions.
So they have NO credibilty.

 

RIP Stanley... You created more arguements in our lounge rooms, than you did in the kitchen!!! Hope the breakfast was pleasent.

 

Suzie Q is another boxrec trawler. Although looking from his Marine training he seems tough as Hell so I'll say no more :good

 

No one says Langford took Ketchel lightly even though he traveled cross counrty the week of the fight, virtually guaranteeing he was not it top shape when entering the ring. The issue is if Langford carried him to set up a big money title shot and much of the newspaper coverage backs this up ... it's no dishonor to not be as good as Langford. Who here is saying they think Ketchel beats Langford straight up ? I say Sam by KO , early ...

 

Likewise. Langford would stop Ketchel after any given moment.

 

Suzie is a good guy and a fine poster,sometimes his youth and enthusiasm get the better of him ,but he has a real passion for Boxing, he makes a significant contribution to this site and has an absorbing interest in the 50's fights, and a good knowledge of them.

 

SQ is one of the hearts of this Board ... he's a little hot headed but is quite knowledgable ...

 

Just like you have no credidibility claiming langford took it easy on ketchel. The fight stands as is, a classic battle between two ATGs in there prime. Langford said ketchel was the best white fighter he ever fought. Stanley continues to be the most underated fighter on ESB

Actually I do. the fight result, a 6 round newspaper decision that could have gone either way. Both fighters went toe to toe for 6 rounds and both dished out there best stuff. the Two hardest punchers of the era going all out. Stanley hurt langford pretty badly at one point. langford did get slightly the bettter of it, but langford was at his peak and bigger. the fact stanley did this well against arguebably the greatest of all time shows you how devastating ketchel was.

 

I mean I really dont see this though. Too me Burns does not looke more impressive than ketchel on film. Just because burns knocks out a D level tomato can bill squires with 1 punch, its not going to impress me. Imagine if we had film of Stanley ketchel knocking philaephia jack o brien out cold or knocking out dan porky flynn. imagine if the only peice of film out there on burns was him losing to jack twin sullivan. You would have a much different opinion. Its truelly a shame there isnt film of stanley ketchels best stuff out there. But janitor, you did get to see a glimpse of ketchels RAW ONE PUNCH POWER when he flattened 6'2 205lb peak jack johnson with 1 punch hurting him badly....while burns punches made johnson laugh out loud. how many other middleweights in history are capable of flooring an ATG 200lb + heavyweight champion? Just Stanley.

Watch stanley on film. Study him VERY CLOSELY. you can see why he is great. For one, he has incredible handspeed combined with 1 punch power in both fists. He also attacks his opponent like a tiger. But he is a cagey one. you see he puts all his wait on the backfoot and leans back similiar to max schmeling type stance keeping his right hand high by his chin. He could also move like a cat around the ring. Stanley possesses great athleticism. Stanley is one of the best all around punchers of all time. He knew how to deliver thunderous knockout blows in both fists from a wide variety of angles, and had a slew of different type of punches in his arsenal.

Burns on the other hand is very one dimensional. he simply moves around like a slouch trying to land his one big overhand right(Which is not that powerful in the first place against world class men, certainly nowhere near stanleys league)...he is very stiff, unathletic, he is also quite slow.


Basically Burns would be on a suicide mission against ketchel because the only way he knows how to fight his toe to toe, and stanley will murder him in a slug out. Ketchell was manny pacman when it came to power speed and aggresion. Burns was more like ricky hatton(not much power, very strong, and durable, but slow and unathletic).


This will end up like Pacman vs Hatton. Ketchel KO 2 Burns

 

"Philadelphia, April 28 - Although the general verdict in sportdom today on the fight between Sam Langford and Stanley Ketchel, the "Michigan Assasin", is that the bout was, on the surface at least a draw, few of the experts doubt that it was a draw, because the negro wished it. Everything is now smoothed for a finish between the two men.
The fight went six rounds, was a great bout to watch, and was full of sensational incident. But when the final bell rang last night at the National Athletic Club, those who understood the situation were satisfied that Langford was up to his old trick of saving a man he could beat in order to use him later as a meal ticket."

- wire report printed in the Washington Times, Apr 28th, 1910


"Just what Langford could have done to Ketchel last night, had he cut loose, can only be surmised, but he surely did not try his best to gain a decisive victory last evening, apparently being well content to block and counter and wait to gather permission that he must surely feel is his, in a longer and better paying contest on the Pacific Coast."

- part of the Philadelphia Record's next day account of the fight, which was written under a paragraph entitled "Langford Did Not Try His Best"


"Sam Langford fought under wraps. He allowed Ketchel to set the pace, and was content to follow, landing an occasional blow while the latter was going away. He only used his right hand four times in the first five rounds, and would doubtless have maintained that record to the finish had not Ketchel bored in during the sixth round and compelled the negro to extend himself. It was then that Langford showed his hand, when he drove a wicked right hand uppercut home, a blow which could have sent Ketchel to dreamland any time it landed on a vulnerable spot. But the result of Wednesday night's bout is merely a recital of Langford's ring record. He is perhaps the most remarkable man in the ring today. There is no man who can so accidentally "pull" his blows as Langford can, and it was this little artifice, which the writer carefully studied, and which fooled thousands at the National Club on Wednesday night, that made the bout look ***** in spots."

- part of the Philadelphia Public Ledger's post fight writeup, which includes the words "Negro Did Not Try" as part of the subtitle to the article


Just a few next day accounts coming out of the fight's location.