Stanley Ketchel rated Sam Langford as easy!

[sonnyboyx2]

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?...jeffries&hl=en

[GJC]

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?...jeffries&hl=en

Couldn't actually read the article Sonny, i'd be suprised if Ketchell said that Langford was easy after their exhibition which I believe Langford had the best of and I understood he held back in it to ensure he got a shot at Ketchell's title.

[TheGreatA]

I hear Langford took it easy on Ketchel as well.

[sonnyboyx2]

Couldn't actually read the article Sonny, i'd be suprised if Ketchell said that Langford was easy after their exhibition which I believe Langford had the best of and I understood he held back in it to ensure he got a shot at Ketchell's title.

why can't you read the article GJC ?

[VibesMan]

What are you going on about you clown?... you made a fool of yourself in the Dempsey thread and i put up this thread as i found a newspaper article that i think is of interest to some members on here, obviously not to you because you are a clown

A little off topic Sonny but out of interest how old are you?

How exactly did he make a fool of himself?

[sonnyboyx2]

A little off topic Sonny but out of interest how old are you?

How exactly did he make a fool of himself?

50s.......

[JAB5239]

I hear Langford took it easy on Ketchel as well.

Im reading the Langford biography and not only did he take it easy on Ketchel to secure a title shot, but he carried many other fighters as well to keep securing pay days. Ketchel may have said something along these lines as most fighters boast claims to make themselves appear the better man, but there was no mention of it in the book that I can recall. I'll go back tomorrow and review that section to see if I can find anything.

[TheGreatA]

Flattening the champion in one round in a non-title bout is not the best way to secure a title shot, that's for sure. Langford did just enough not to lose, but also not enough to dominate either. I doubt we saw the best of him in that 6 round bout.

[JAB5239]

Flattening the champion in one round in a non-title bout is not the best way to secure a title shot, that's for sure. Langford did just enough not to lose, but also not enough to dominate either. I doubt we saw the best of him in that 6 round bout.

True enough, but from what I've gathered Langford had Ketchel hurt on several occasions and never followed up. This was obvious to spectators and to their dismay as Sam was a great finisher. Many at the time thought that if Sam did get that shot at the title it would been easy work for him. Many newspaper expressed this opinion (my understanding from the book) and also Nat Fliescher.

[sonnyboyx2]

Flattening the champion in one round in a non-title bout is not the best way to secure a title shot, that's for sure. Langford did just enough not to lose, but also not enough to dominate either. I doubt we saw the best of him in that 6 round bout.

i am not doubting what you claim yet going by the above newspaper article Ketchel seems to think of himself as better than Langford also Langford could have secured a fight with Johnson yet let it pass him by with not putting up the bond.