Sam Langford vs. Bob Fitzsimmons

[Loewe]

Never saw that one discussed. What you do guys think this one would unfold?

[mcvey]

Never saw that one discussed. What you do guys think this one would unfold?
Langford ,for me Fitz had freakish power for his weight ,but so did Sam and I beleive he was more elusive and a better boxer.Langford by ko say 12th rd [it is over 15 rds I take it?].Good matchup!

[PowerPuncher]

Very nice match up, would know better if we'd seen them, I'd pick Langford

[SuperSouthpaw]

Langford by Kayo

[abraq]

Terrific matchup.

Ruby Roberts - tough, deceptive appearance hiding his strength, numbing power, unorthodox, determined, achiever, not very elusive or mobile but his great durability more than making up for it.

Sam Langford - Built (in the 1900's!), looked strong - was strong, great chin, great power, super confident, achiever, mobile, elusive with great boxing skills.

Hard pick. But I think the last 3 qualities would tilt the scales towards Old Sam.

[Minotauro]

A toss up could go either way since everyone think Langford I'll go with Fitz.

[Rock0052]

Someone's getting knocked out. Given that many fighters who did fight each other did it multiple times, I'll take the cop out answer and say both fighters would pick up wins against each other in the series. If it were one fight only? Neither winning would surprise me.

[guilalah]

Fitzsimmons/Langford is also threaded at cyberboxingzone

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Mendoza]

I go back and forth on this one. Langford was in awe of Fitz, and he and Joe Gans used to like to hang around Fitz to pick up the lost arts of boxing that was given to Fitz by Jim Mace himself.

I think Fitzsimmons might have an easier time beating some of the guys who gave Langford trouble, but this is a head to head match up. Styles make fights. Langford had a battle tested and iron chin, and in a war between two power hitters, I'll go with the more durable of the two if the skills are near even.

I'd pick Langford to out last Fitzsimmons in war.

[Cmoyle]

"Langford was in awe of Fitz, and he and Joe Gans used to like to hang around Fitz to pick up the lost arts of boxing that was given to Fitz by Jim Mace himself."

Interesting, I hadn't heard that, though I do have a photo of Langford with Fitz, Mace, and another party. Do you have a source that you can provide for that bit of information? Thanks

[Seamus]

he was more elusive and a better boxer.

On film, Langford shows little defense besides his offense. I don't see a lot in that department.

However, Fitz shows- perhaps- even less defense.

Let's remind ourselves we have not seen prime Fitz on film, even the grainy bad stock of the Corbett fight.

All said, it's pretty even with my edge going to Langford for a more evolved, balanced style.

[Loewe]

I go back and forth on this one. Langford was in awe of Fitz, and he and Joe Gans used to like to hang around Fitz to pick up the lost arts of boxing that was given to Fitz by Jim Mace himself.

I think Fitzsimmons might have an easier time beating some of the guys who gave Langford trouble, but this is a head to head match up. Styles make fights. Langford had a battle tested and iron chin, and in a war between two power hitters, I'll go with the more durable of the two if the skills are near even.

I'd pick Langford to out last Fitzsimmons in war.

Never heard that either, nice info. Thanks.

[mcvey]

On film, Langford shows little defense besides his offense. I don't see a lot in that department.

However, Fitz shows- perhaps- even less defense.

Let's remind ourselves we have not seen prime Fitz on film, even the grainy bad stock of the Corbett fight.

All said, it's pretty even with my edge going to Langford for a more evolved, balanced style.
For elusive /better boxer, read evolved, balanced.Lets remind ourselves that Corbett put Fitz down .Fitz according to reports and what little film is available ,stood straight up left extended ,walking forward ,head erect ,probing for openings Langford was more compact ,rolling in ,throwing a higher volume of punches.That's my take on it.

[Loewe]

For elusive /better boxer, read evolved, balanced.Lets remind ourselves that Corbett put Fitz down .Fitz according to reports and what little film is available ,stood straight up left extended ,walking forward ,head erect ,probing for openings Langford was more compact ,rolling in ,throwing a higher volume of punches.That's my take on it.

What about Fitz´s reach advantage?

btw. the fight would be under the rules of the day, so not 15 rounds but something like 40, 45. Also I don´t think the end will be reached.

[Holmes' Jab]

Langford, just. Close decision.

[Mendoza]

On film, Langford shows little defense besides his offense. I don't see a lot in that department.

However, Fitz shows- perhaps- even less defense.

Let's remind ourselves we have not seen prime Fitz on film, even the grainy bad stock of the Corbett fight.

All said, it's pretty even with my edge going to Langford for a more evolved, balanced style.

I agree in general, but Fitz was up vs a much better boxer on flim in Corbett, and Langford on flim is up vs slower and less skilled men in Lang, and Flynn.

Fit'z defense was based on leaning back a bit, and the other guy fearing his coutner punches, and hooks to the head or body.

[mattdonnellon]

I agree a great match-up and I vote for Fitz as I think his fighting cuteness was greatly underated but if they had multiple contests the split would be pretty even.

[SuzieQ49]

Fit'z defense was based on leaning back a bit


lol a cardinal sin in boxing

[SuzieQ49]

come on guys get real......fitz is nowhere near langfords league. fitz is pretty much a poor mans stanley ketchel.

[Sweet Pea]

come on guys get real......fitz is nowhere near langfords league. fitz is pretty much a poor mans stanley ketchel.I'd say Fitz handily outranks Ketchell on achievements, though both look awful on film.

[Minotauro]

come on guys get real......fitz is nowhere near langfords league. fitz is pretty much a poor mans stanley ketchel.

Fitz achieved much more then Ketchel and is to this day the only true middleweight, light heavy and heavyweight champ ever. Fitz is arguably a top ten p4p and they both him and Langford look reasonably the same level on film although the film quality is poor and slow so there is only so much you can take from it. Compare Fitz resume to Ketchel's it is miles better.

[mcvey]

What about Fitz´s reach advantage?

btw. the fight would be under the rules of the day, so not 15 rounds but something like 40, 45. Also I don´t think the end will be reached.
I take nothing away from Fitz he is a p4p top ten imo,but I think you will find Langford had a longer reach than Fitz.Plus Burns had a longer reach than Johnson ,Wills and Tate than Langford, Liston than Ali.You nullify reach by getting close and Sam was a master at that.

[Loewe]

I take nothing away from Fitz he is a p4p top ten imo,but I think you will find Langford had a longer reach than Fitz.Plus Burns had a longer reach than Johnson ,Wills and Tate than Langford, Liston than Ali.You nullify reach by getting close and Sam was a master at that.

So, you don´t think Fitz is good enough to stay away from Sam?

[janitor]

fitz is pretty much a poor mans stanley ketchel.

Fitz is closer to Langford than he is to Ketchel.

Like Langford he was a master finisher up there with any from any era or weight class.

If Johnson had clowned around like that against Fitz he would have probably been sparked.

[janitor]

So, you don´t think Fitz is good enough to stay away from Sam?

I dont think that is exactly what he would try to do.

He would use is movment but he would cover small distances and try to set up punching angles and catch Langford coming in.

Much would depend on how Langford chose to deal with this.

[Loewe]

I dont think that is exactly what he would try to do.

He would use is movment but he would cover small distances and try to set up punching angles and catch Langford coming in.

Much would depend on how Langford chose to deal with this.

How much success would he have against Langford with this tactic and what would Langford do to avoid it?

[janitor]

[quote=Loewe]How much success would he have against Langford with this tactic

Quite a bit if Langford played into his hands and came straight forward.

One thing Fitzsimmons always knew how to do was punish a come forward fighter economicaly and brutaly. If Langford trys to bore forward and duck under he will be facing a lot of nasty, pre planed counters to parts of the body that most fighters dont even know about.

Langford would probably be too smart to play that game and if he wasnt he would know better in the rematch.

and what would Langford do to avoid it?

If Langford fights a smart fight (as he generaly did) he will use his own mobility to circle Fitz and create openings. He will try to get Fitz to bite the feint first then go in for the kill on the inside and finish it with a sneak left hook.

[Seamus]

I'd say Fitz handily outranks Ketchell on achievements, though both look awful on film.

I hold Fitz in significantly higher esteem than Ketchell.

[mcvey]

So, you don´t think Fitz is good enough to stay away from Sam?
I don't think its about being good enough,but how a man fights,Fitz stood flat footed gauging his man ,he was a pin point puncher,very crafty ,a great judge of pace with inbuilt ring sense,he would be up against a mini hercules huge shoulders ,long reach ,with terrific power.It's very possible Fitz might nail Sam coming in and dump him for keeps,but I don't see Fitz getting on his bike ,boxing on the retreat,when did he ever do that?.Even against Jeffries ,outweighed by47 lbs Fitz met him head on.

[mattdonnellon]

Bob was in trouble early in his first Maher fight, boxed the rest of the fight behind a jab, cut Maher up and then applied pressure to force the stoppage. Fitz could box several ways(as could Langford) Thats why they are both top10 p4p IMO. As somebody pointed out both COULD win this fight, it a matter of how it would pan out, style-wise.

[Ramon Rojo]

Langford by KO

[pugilist_boyd]

could go either way but ill say fitz piston like punches eventually take sam out

[Mendoza]

come on guys get real......fitz is nowhere near langfords league. fitz is pretty much a poor mans stanley ketchel.

Forgive me, but sarcasm does not translate well into a message board. Are you being serious here? Fitz is much better than Ketchel.

[SuzieQ49]

Forgive me, but sarcasm does not translate well into a message board. Are you being serious here? Fitz is much better than Ketchel.


how so? Ketchel is grossely underated here, while fitz is horribly overated. fitz had a bareknuckle style, while ketchel was much more modern with his style, he was more of a jack dempsey like fighter. I think ketchells resume is very underated...sam langford at the peak of his powers could do nothing to the lighter ketchell.


I think ketchel would have knocked fitz out. ketchel was more aggresive, faster, and hit harder than fitz.

[Cmoyle]

"I think ketchells resume is very underated...sam langford at the peak of his powers could do nothing to the lighter ketchell."

Huh? See: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Maxmomer]

"I think ketchells resume is very underated...sam langford at the peak of his powers could do nothing to the lighter ketchell."

Huh? See: [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Sounds like it was a good fight, even if Langford was holding back. You also have to take into account he was a light-heavyweight fighting a middleweight. I feel the author is a little biased towards Langford.

"Ketchel would train and prepare himself for an upcoming fight with Sam McVea in Paris"

That would have been interesting.

[Cmoyle]

"I feel the author is a little biased towards Langford. "

Maybe so, but the research I did convinced me he carried Ketchel early in their one fight. I'm convinced he had no desire of doing anything in that fight that might have hurt his chances of obtaining a longer more lucrative match against Ketchel later in the year.

[Cmoyle]

If anyone wants it, I have over 91,000 words of information surrounding the Langford-Ketchel fight, mainly from various newspaper articles, that I can forward to them. Just sent me your email address and I'll forward it to you. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, one can only post up to 10,000 words here. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Maxmomer]

If anyone wants it, I have over 91,000 words of information surrounding the Langford-Ketchel fight, mainly from various newspaper articles, that I can forward to them. Just sent me your email address and I'll forward it to you. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, one can only post up to 10,000 words here. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

I'll take it. Send it to [Only registered and activated users can see links]

Thanks. I look forward to reading your whole book. Biased or not.

[Seamus]

Sorry, but Fitz is in yet another league than Ketchel in terms of being a puncher. He proved it against the big boys. The more I think about this fight, the more I lean closer to Fitz... but still too close to call.

[SuzieQ49]

Sorry, but Fitz is in yet another league than Ketchel in terms of being a puncher. He proved it against the big boys.

like who? stanley Ketchell knocked down and hurt badly a fully matured and grown ATG 210lb jack jackson.....he also flattened durable big heavyweight dan porky flynn. Fitz was unable to floor jeffries or johnson. knocking out some big uncoordinated turd like ed dunkhorst LOL does not prove he was better vs big men. The papers reported that ketchell was faster than fitzimmons, and I believe ketchell hit harder too....ketchell got his whole body into every punch.....fitz did not have good punching techinque. he threw wide punches bareknuckle style.... ketchell died young so he never got to fully enhance his legacy.


The more I think about this fight, the more I lean closer to Fitz... but still too close to call.



wait so you make fun of sam mcveas style being undermodern in another thread, have u ever watched fitzimmons on film? he is one of the most pathetic looking "great" fighters I have ever seen.

[SuzieQ49]

jack johnson said stanley ketchell was the hardest hitter he ever faced in the dressing room after there fight.

[Seamus]

jack johnson said stanley ketchell was the hardest hitter he ever faced in the dressing room after there fight.

not at all due to the embarrassment of being kd'd by a midget.

and yeah, i'm suprised a 107 yr. old fitz could not kd johnson.

[mattdonnellon]

"like who? stanley Ketchell knocked down and hurt badly a fully matured and grown ATG 210lb jack jackson.....he also flattened durable big heavyweight dan porky flynn."
Flynn was just out of the middleweight division when he fased Ketchell and stood 5-101/2. Oh and Johnson was 205 for the Ketchell contest.

[Ted Spoon]

There should be a book release - 'Bob Fitzsimmons: The spindly fellow who could not fight'.

It matters not how Fitzsimmons appears to have fought, he was a deadly fighter by any measure; durable, adaptable and powerful.

There is no fight footage of Harry Greb, but we know he was a fighter of sizable pedigree because of the men he beat. Similarly, we are all aware of who Fitzsimmons plastered, so his worth as a fighting force should not be diminished because he does not look stylistically sound.

If it was easier to harness, you would have seen far more fighters back then adapting that 'stand-up/counter-punching style' with a low guard to encourage leading and shuffling to the side to throw those counter hooks.

A bout with Langford would produce an epic battle for ring centre. Langford was a fighter who was great at starting a fire whereas Fitzsimmons was great at putting them out.

As much as Langford is prone to Fitzsimmons' countering ways, so is Fitzsimmons to the energetic shorter man, who will bore in and punish the available body.

Fitzsimmons can cut, but in this kind of fight, the more calculating Blacksmith may make it count more when he lands the gasping shots.

Langford was a fighter of a unique brawling science, but against a man of such cunning and precision he may find himself suffering like Hagler did against Duran and Leonard.

It's a real hard fight to call. The activity levels are with Langford whereas the money shots would likely come from Fitzsimmons. Bob could cut up but he could also fight through hell, as could Langford.

The perfect test would be to get Langford to fight Joe Choynski and see how he does. Fitzsimmons had a knockdown fest with him that he was about to win as the 6-rounder came to a close.

Langford was reported as, generally, getting the better of Ketchel when their 6-rounder came to a close. Ted Spoon would favour Choynski to do in Ketchel with his straighter striking and better taught discipline.

Knee-jerk reaction says Fitzsimmons for the win.

-It may not appear so on what little film there is of Ruby Robert, but he considered it much harder to fight Jeffries in the first fight when he adopted a 'stand-up' style. Before the Jeffries/Johnson fight, he had encouraged to big Jim to apply the same style, not the crouching one in their rematch, which he claimed is what made him receive so much punishment.

[Mendoza]

how so? Ketchel is grossely underated here, while fitz is horribly overated. fitz had a bareknuckle style, while ketchel was much more modern with his style, he was more of a jack dempsey like fighter. I think ketchells resume is very underated...sam langford at the peak of his powers could do nothing to the lighter ketchell.


I think ketchel would have knocked fitz out. ketchel was more aggresive, faster, and hit harder than fitz.

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.

[Mendoza]

If anyone wants it, I have over 91,000 words of information surrounding the Langford-Ketchel fight, mainly from various newspaper articles, that I can forward to them. Just sent me your email address and I'll forward it to you. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, one can only post up to 10,000 words here. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

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.

[Seamus]

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.

[Senya13]

10,000 characters, not words.