Tweet
Well my friend, he is not regarded so highly because of how and who he'd beat in the modern eras. What you have to do is look at what he did in his era and how he did it.
-
-
In my opinion it's because Ketchel became the middleweight champion in an era where there were several title claimants and he came out of nowhere to beat them all. He didn't only beat them but he knocked them out, leaving no doubts about who the real champion was.
He also beat LHW champ O'Brien legitimately, knocked him out cold.
The Jack Johnson fight is obviously part of his legend but it was still a loss although knocking down a much bigger man should be considered an achievement.
Another achievement was going 6 rounds with Langford with no clear winner (some thought Langford had the better of it, some thought Ketchel did). Langford however said after Ketchel's death that "the fool went into his grave thinking he could beat me, indicating that he had held back a little since there was supposed to be a rematch (possibly for the MW title?).
I'm not completely certain about this though, maybe someone can prove or disprove it.Last edited by TheGreatA; 03-28-2009, 05:00 PM.Comment
-
It'd be impossible to prove one way or the other, Machine, but what Langford hinted at later on was a common opinion of the sportwriters covering the fight and they expressed such in their day-afters. A couple of quick examples;
"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 doubtless would 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 that 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 accidently "pull" his blows as Langford can, and it was with 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."
- written in the Philadelphia Public Ledger on Apr 29th, 1910, which includes a numer of other statements regarding Langford not giving his all, including in the heading where it states 'Negro Did Not Try'
"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 the 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 post fight opinion of it from the day after, which was under a paragraph entitled 'Langford Did Not Try His Best'. The report also features some other scattered stuff on it, as well
"Philadelphia, Apr 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 it was a draw, because the negro wished it. Everything is now smoothed for a finish fight between the two men.
The fight went the 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 in the Washington Times, Apr 28th, 1910
Etc., etc...A number of writings hinting at Langford's lack of total effort in that fight, and in fact, I'm pretty sure I've read Nat Fleischer's view of it in the past where he echoed a lot of those same thoughts. Maybe not from Fleischer, though, as its been quite a while since I've read his view on it, but there's a few words from the sportswriters seated ringside and they pretty much all shared what seemed to be the prevailing opinion as far as Langford's effort went.Comment
-
Here's the San Francisco Call's account of the fight from the day after for anybody to read, which echoes everything that you and Cox have to say on it;I'm going to be lazy and only post an article.
I think he has a good resume. I don't think he is one of the best boxers I've ever seen on film but he was evidently a very strong and durable fighter with one of the best KO records ever, especially considering the era he fought in (48 KO's out of 53 wins).
Remember that it's a 20 round fight and not one of Ketchel's best performances by most accounts (even though he won). I wish they had filmed the third Ketchel-Papke fight instead.
Comment
Comment