Sam Langford-Stanley Ketchal

[joseph5620]

Does anybody here have any more insight on this fight? I've read conflicting reports.





In 1910, Langford fought a very tough, six-round no-decision bout against the aggressive middleweight champion, Stanley Ketchel. Langford scored well in the early rounds, but Ketchel took control towards the end of the fight. Newspaper accounts generally awarded the decision to Ketchel, although the verdict could have gone either way





Langford was at his peak at middleweight when Stanley Ketchel was the world middleweight champion. Nat Fleischer wrote, “One hesitates to say that Ketchel, reknowned deservedly for his gameness, was afraid of Langford. But the fact remains that Stanley had refused several offers to meet Langford in a distance bout.”



They did finally meet in a 6 round no decision affair. The April 28, 1910 Philadelphia Bulletin reported “Sam Langford, of Boston, defeated Stanley Ketchel of Grand Rapids, Mich., in a 6 round bout at the National Club last night.” Langford established a superior jab in the first two rounds. In the third he “shook Ketchel badly with swings to the head.” In the fourth he “twice shook Ketchel with jaw punches and brought the blood from the mouth and nose with well timed jabs.” Langford let up in the last two rounds. “To sum it up, Langford was much the stronger and cleverer and his jabs had a disconcerting effect on Ketchel…the colored man looked to be in pretty good shape at the close, but Ketchel was tired and wild and the sound of the bell was a welcome interruption.” The newspaper verdict, contrary to some later published reports, was in favor of Langford.

[RubenSonny]

It might appear to the current judging criteria that Langford won the fight but the criteria I believe was a bit different back then, I'm not really gonna argue ardently for either fighter, just my thoughts and understanding from the articles I've read. It should be noted that I am a big admirer of Langford.

[JAB5239]

Does anybody here have any more insight on this fight? I've read conflicting reports.





In 1910, Langford fought a very tough, six-round no-decision bout against the aggressive middleweight champion, Stanley Ketchel. Langford scored well in the early rounds, but Ketchel took control towards the end of the fight. Newspaper accounts generally awarded the decision to Ketchel, although the verdict could have gone either way





Langford was at his peak at middleweight when Stanley Ketchel was the world middleweight champion. Nat Fleischer wrote, �One hesitates to say that Ketchel, reknowned deservedly for his gameness, was afraid of Langford. But the fact remains that Stanley had refused several offers to meet Langford in a distance bout.?



They did finally meet in a 6 round no decision affair. The April 28, 1910 Philadelphia Bulletin reported �Sam Langford, of Boston, defeated Stanley Ketchel of Grand Rapids, Mich., in a 6 round bout at the National Club last night.?Langford established a superior jab in the first two rounds. In the third he �shook Ketchel badly with swings to the head.?In the fourth he �twice shook Ketchel with jaw punches and brought the blood from the mouth and nose with well timed jabs.?Langford let up in the last two rounds. �To sum it up, Langford was much the stronger and cleverer and his jabs had a disconcerting effect on Ketchel�the colored man looked to be in pretty good shape at the close, but Ketchel was tired and wild and the sound of the bell was a welcome interruption.?The newspaper verdict, contrary to some later published reports, was in favor of Langford.

Because he couldn't get a distance bout Sam didn't go all out on Ketchel in hoping to get a chance at his title at a later date. The bout they fought was a np decision contest because under Philidelphia law thats all that was allowed. One news paper said, because Langford was going so easy in the first said the contest had "an odor of rat to it". A the end of the third Langford caught him with a stinging left that froze Ketchel, yet he refused to follow up which was very out of character when fighting a dangerous opponent. I the 4th Sam decided to ease up instead of ruining his chances of securing a title fight at a later date.

These are some of the words from the Philidelphia record the day after the fight.

"Langford beats Stanley Ketchel"

"White boy made fight-forcing every round and was well winded at the end."

"Langford did not try his best".

These quotes and information come from Clay Moyle's biography on Langford which I recently finished reading.

In my opinion Langford was the better fighter and if not better at the very least equal in punching power.

[sonnyboyx2]

Because he couldn't get a distance bout Sam didn't go all out on Ketchel in hoping to get a chance at his title at a later date. The bout they fought was a np decision contest because under Philidelphia law thats all that was allowed. One news paper said, because Langford was going so easy in the first said the contest had "an odor of rat to it". A the end of the third Langford caught him with a stinging left that froze Ketchel, yet he refused to follow up which was very out of character when fighting a dangerous opponent. I the 4th Sam decided to ease up instead of ruining his chances of securing a title fight at a later date.

These are some of the words from the Philidelphia record the day after the fight.

"Langford beats Stanley Ketchel"

"White boy made fight-forcing every round and was well winded at the end."

"Langford did not try his best".

These quotes and information come from Clay Moyle's biography on Langford which I recently finished reading.

In my opinion Langford was the better fighter and if not better at the very least equal in punching power.

Thats an accurate account of it and how i have always believed it to have been...Langford suffered back in those days because he was known to "carry his opponents" and in particular other black fighters.. so the fight-fans had little interest in watching them fight because they did not want to see or pay to see them going through the motions, they wanted to see action and that is what Ketchel, Greb & Dempsey brought to their fights.

[JAB5239]

Thats an accurate account of it and how i have always believed it to have been...Langford suffered back in those days because he was known to "carry his opponents" and in particular other black fighters.. so the fight-fans had little interest in watching them fight because they did not want to see or pay to see them going through the motions, they wanted to see action and that is what Ketchel, Greb & Dempsey brought to their fights.

I disagree fans had little interest. There was enough interest that promoters from three different continents were willing to put up money to make the first black vs black heavyweight championship for what was considered the legitimate title.

I also believe had Ketchel lived a fight with Sam would have come off as both were not only dynamite punchers, but very charismatic outside the ring. Sam did have to carry some opponents but that was to secure paydays which led to bigger names. The public definitely wouldn't have been screaming for Ketchel to defend his title against Langford had Sam taken him out early. By carrying him he secured interest and would have had his shot had Stanley not died.

If Johnson had given him his promised shot than Sam would have never had to carry a heavyweight. By not doing so it forced Langford to either get rounds in and stay in the public eye or knock guys out quickly and risk no one wanting to fight him and falling out of view. But there was definitely interest in those two title fights.

[Holtol]

I don't know much about the fight, I read about it and it sounded like Langford won. I am not sure if Ketchel was past his best at that point either. I read in the book " Men of Steel" that Ketchel had developed an addiction to Opioids but I don't know if he had the addiction at that point in time.

[JAB5239]

I don't know much about the fight, I read about it and it sounded like Langford won. I am not sure if Ketchel was past his best at that point either. I read in the book " men of steel" that Ketchel had developed an addiction to Opioids but I don't know if he had the addiction at that point in time.

I can't point to any particular source but I have also heard Ketchel was on the slide.

[sonnyboyx2]

I disagree fans had little interest. There was enough interest that promoters from three different continents were willing to put up money to make the first black vs black heavyweight championship for what was considered the legitimate title.

I also believe had Ketchel lived a fight with Sam would have come off as both were not only dynamite punchers, but very charismatic outside the ring. Sam did have to carry some opponents but that was to secure paydays which led to bigger names. The public definitely wouldn't have been screaming for Ketchel to defend his title against Langford had Sam taken him out early. By carrying him he secured interest and would have had his shot had Stanley not died.

If Johnson had given him his promised shot than Sam would have never had to carry a heavyweight. By not doing so it forced Langford to either get rounds in and stay in the public eye or knock guys out quickly and risk no one wanting to fight him and falling out of view. But there was definitely interest in those two title fights.

click on the link

[JAB5239]

click on the link

I've read this before my friend and it only talks about this one fight with Jeanette. It doesn't mention anything about fans not having interest in Langford overall and points more directly to the fight being a bore because they were so accustomed to one another. We cannot change the fact that promoters all over the world were trying to make Langford-Johnson happen. They wouldn't have even attempted this had there been no interest.

[sonnyboyx2]

I've read this before my friend and it only talks about this one fight with Jeanette. It doesn't mention anything about fans not having interest in Langford overall and points more directly to the fight being a bore because they were so accustomed to one another. We cannot change the fact that promoters all over the world were trying to make Langford-Johnson happen. They wouldn't have even attempted this had there been no interest.

Langford is not the crux of what i am saying.. it is that black fighters of that era was known to go through the motions with their black opponents which turned-off the white spectator as they deemed fights between 2 blacks as not being "on the line".. Johnson vs Langford was not as called for as Johnson vs Ketchel or Johnson vs Jeffries or Willard for that matter.