Dempsey v Langford

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Langford gets alot of praise for a guy who lost or drew around 1/3 of his fights. Granted, i dont know the ins and outs of his record and most great fighters have a few losses pre or post-prime. But we're talking 100 fights here

Langford often fought at much heavier opponents, eventually started to lose his sight, always fought the best, sometimes carried opponents, fought very often, and didn't quit until he was well past it.

In his prime he amassed a streak of 81-4-5 with a record over the following Hall of Famers as such:

Joe Jeanette 5-0-3
Dixie Kid 2-0
Stanley Ketchel 1-0
Sam McVey 4-1-2
Philadelphia Jack O' Brien 1-0
Harry Wills 1-0-1

[Johnstown]

they could have fought, but it would not have been prime for prime....Langfords prime would have meant that Dempsey was green....dempsey prime means langford is old and shot.

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by Cmoyle

"My new manager (John the Barber) was all business the first day he took over. "Jack," he said "we're going to make some real money. I've already got you a fight up in Boston."

Naturally, I was curious. And pleased. "Yeah? Who do I fight?"

John the Barber grinned. "Sam Langford," he said.

I just looked at the guy. "He'd kill me," I said.

He gave me a long song and dance about how good I was and what a win over Langford would mean. It made me sick to think he was talking about his own man, who had put thousands in his pockets.

"I've seen Langford," I said. "You're wasting your time. I won't fight him. He's too damned good for me."

Jack Dempsey from 'Dempsey, by the Man Himself' Simon and Schuster 1960.

what year did the conversation happen? how green was dempsey at that point?

[lufcrazy]

I've moved both up my hw list.

Dempsey is now number 13 and Langford is number 12.

I might take some flak for that but I think whilst Dempsey achieved more (Langford was never really the best HW out there with Johnson around) I think Langford has a huge edge in resume and when past his prime he twice knocked out the man who would be far and wide Jack's best victory.

The only way I could separate them was on a h2h basis and I think Langford beats Dempsey.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I've moved both up my hw list.

Dempsey is now number 13 and Langford is number 12.

I might take some flak for that but I think whilst Dempsey achieved more (Langford was never really the best HW out there with Johnson around) I think Langford has a huge edge in resume and when past his prime he twice knocked out the man who would be far and wide Jack's best victory.

The only way I could separate them was on a h2h basis and I think Langford beats Dempsey.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I've moved both up my hw list.

Dempsey is now number 13 and Langford is number 12.

I might take some flak for that but I think whilst Dempsey achieved more (Langford was never really the best HW out there with Johnson around) I think Langford has a huge edge in resume and when past his prime he twice knocked out the man who would be far and wide Jack's best victory.

The only way I could separate them was on a h2h basis and I think Langford beats Dempsey.

quality post

[Boggle]

Originally Posted by BeerGut

What is the time-frame for this conversation? I'm assuming this wasn't when Dempsey was champion, so how far into his career would this have been?

In 1916, not long before he faced John Lester Johnson.

[BeerGut]

Originally Posted by Boggle

In 1916, not long before he faced John Lester Johnson.

A full three years before Dempsey became champion ..... that puts those comments in context. Not so surprising that Dempsey didn't want a part of Langford at that time.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by BeerGut

A full three years before Dempsey became champion ..... that puts those comments in context. Not so surprising that Dempsey didn't want a part of Langford at that time.

Langford was dangerous right up until the end of his career. Even when fully blind (See the Flowers result)

[Pachilles]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Langford often fought at much heavier opponents, eventually started to lose his sight, always fought the best, sometimes carried opponents, fought very often, and didn't quit until he was well past it.

In his prime he amassed a streak of 81-4-5 with a record over the following Hall of Famers as such:

Joe Jeanette 5-0-3
Dixie Kid 1-0
Stanley Ketchel 1-0
Jeff Clark 1-1
Sam McVey 4-1-2
Philadelphia Jack O' Brien 1-0
Harry Wills 1-0-1

Look at it from this perspective though. At only 16 losses, Robertards stretching to excuse Duran's blemishes, "he needed a poo" has had to have been pulled out of the bag, and thats at only 16 losses.

At worst i think you have to assume Langford was very beatable. Dangerous, but beatable.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I agree wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

quality post

was convinced I was gonna get shit on for this post.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Look at it from this perspective though. At only 16 losses, Robertards stretching to excuse Duran's blemishes, "he needed a poo" has had to have been pulled out of the bag, and thats at only 16 losses.

At worst i think you have to assume Langford was very beatable. Dangerous, but beatable.

Anybody would be prety darn beatable if they fought the kind of schedule that Langford did.

Do you think that Muhamad Ali wouldn't have picked up a load of losses, if he had fought the top contenders that frequently and close together?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Look at it from this perspective though. At only 16 losses, Robertards stretching to excuse Duran's blemishes, "he needed a poo" has had to have been pulled out of the bag, and thats at only 16 losses.

At worst i think you have to assume Langford was very beatable. Dangerous, but beatable.

Well I don't really think that's true. I reckon his prime ran from 1907-1914. In this time he lost only to McVey (emphatically avenged) and was outboxed by Clark in a fight where for the first time in his career he couldn't keep up with the pace of his opponent (an opponent he'd previously iced). From this point on he was very beatable but during his prime it just isn't a fair comment.

[Synthetic Decay]

Different times, no special attachment to being unbeaten, throwing fights for rematches, traveling, unknown styles, et cetera

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Pachilles

Look at it from this perspective though. At only 16 losses, Robertards stretching to excuse Duran's blemishes, "he needed a poo" has had to have been pulled out of the bag, and thats at only 16 losses.

At worst i think you have to assume Langford was very beatable. Dangerous, but beatable.

With respect, I don't believe you quite understand the context. There was no protected amateur start for Langford - he learned on the job, from lightweight, and competed on even terms with some lower weight formidables - Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn, Joe Walcott. Weekly or monthly schedule, remember.

After losing to Jack Johnson, who outweighed Langford by thirty pounds, he started coming into his own as a matured large middleweight/light heavyweight. That's where the streak started: 81-4-5.

Now... Realise this. Langford didn't just fight the odd bout where his opponent outweighed him - he was doing all the time, and at that same frequency where sometimes there would be only two or three weeks between grueling battles. Sam McVey? Joe Jeanette? Harry Wills? All naturally larger than Langford. It got to the stage where anyone who was actually the same size got obliterated, like Philadelphia Jack O' Brien, Jeff Clark and Kid Norfolk (all Hall of Famers - EDIT: not Clark, though he should be).

Langford ended up as a natural light heavyweight, blown up to 190lbs+, 5ft 7in boxer up against natural 200lbs+ fighters month in, month out. He ended up losing his sight near the end of his career and suffered the fate of many a bad decision against him, and having to fight the same quality (and larger than he) opponents again and again. Nobody was out to protect him.

Of course, beatable. As Janitor says, anyone would be in those circumstances.