The Evening World scored Langford a *shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the time.

McGrain · 03-16-2011, 04:56 PM

Ya'll musta forgot.

[img]***********.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/langford_sam.jpg[/img]

Jorodz · 03-16-2011, 05:00 PM

that line belongs to the one and only ROY JONES JUNIOR! who's this ****ing langford clown??!!

kidding aside, to hold (in the eyes of many) conclusive victories over joe gans, joe walcott, stanley ketchel, jack o'brien and NUMEROUS top heavyweights puts him at the very top of the all time list.

a very strong argument can be made based on his current resume for number 1 and if he got the fights he deserved, he'd almost be guaranteed a joint spot for number 1 with greb and robinson

klompton · 03-16-2011, 05:03 PM

Definately in the top two or three no questions asked.

kmac · 03-16-2011, 05:09 PM

agreed, the more and more i compare resumes, it's very easy to put langford as #1. he shouldn't be outside anyone's top 5 imo. he gets penalized because he fought so long ago and the lack of footage. probably the biggest bad ass to ever step in the ring.

Jorodz · 03-16-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmac

agreed, the more and more i compare resumes, it's very easy to put langford as #1. he shouldn't be outside anyone's top 5 imo. he gets penalized because he fought so long ago and the lack of footage. probably the biggest bad ass to ever step in the ring.

agreed, and his record is misleading. if he didn't spend so much time fighting world class heavies while still a middleweight, instead sticking to fighters near his weightclass, just imagine what his resume would look like.

from 160-175, was there anyone who had a chance of consistently beating him?

techks · 03-16-2011, 05:15 PM

I would love to see more footage of him and some footage period of Barbados Joe Walcott. Both are top 5 ATGs and as much as I like Robinson, he is NOT the clear GOAT. I don't think anyone is as there still is Greb, Armstrong,etc. that's why I don't take ATG/"Who's the Greatest?" rankings too seriously. Great fighter that Langford was and no one in this time or afterwards will ever repeat what he did so that makes him even greater.

PoliSari · 03-16-2011, 05:17 PM

ahead of his time. wonderful talent.

all factors taken into account, i have to place him near the top all time. one of my favorites without question.

burt bienstock · 03-16-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorodz

that line belongs to the one and only ROY JONES JUNIOR! who's this ****ing langford clown??!!

kidding aside, to hold (in the eyes of many) conclusive victories over joe gans, joe walcott, stanley ketchel, jack o'brien and NUMEROUS top heavyweights puts him at the very top of the all time list.

a very strong argument can be made based on his current resume for number 1 and if he got the fights he deserved, he'd almost be guaranteed a joint spot for number 1 with greb and robinson

J, not to detract from Sam Langford's legacy. But the fight with Stanley Ketchel was called a draw in 1910. Langford was about 12-15 pounds heavier
than the fading Ketchel,who was most probably addicted to opium by this time.Ketchel was in bad shape by then and went to his friend's ranch in Conway, Missouri to recuperate,where Stanley six months later was shot and killed.Langford was in his prime at 27 years old,and was a much bigger man
than the Michigan Assassin, by then...

McGrain · 03-16-2011, 05:59 PM

No, it was not called a draw. It was called a draw by some, but more sources label it a win. Hence, in our own time, it is now listed as a newspaper win for Langford - due to Langford's being a winner in the opinion of more of the newspaper-men at ringside.

burt bienstock · 03-16-2011, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

No, it was not called a draw. It was called a draw by some, but more sources label it a win. Hence, in our own time, it is now listed as a newspaper win for Langford - due to Langford's being a winner in the opinion of more of the newspaper-men at ringside.

The IBHO register has Ketchel, ND-W 6,and the result can be debated, but the fact remains Sam Langford was the bigger man for that fight. Both at 158 lbs, Ketchel was the equal of Langford. In their middleweight primes,no one was superior to Ketchel, by the vast majority of writers of that time...

McGrain · 03-16-2011, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burt bienstock

The IBHO register has Ketchel, ND-W 6,and the result can be debated, but the fact remains Sam Langford was the bigger man for that fight. Both at 158 lbs, Ketchel was the equal of Langford. In their middleweight primes,no one was superior to Ketchel, by the vast majority of writers of that time...

I don't see how you can say that Ketchel was his equal when more bystanders considered him beaten than not?

EDIT: Ah, sorry, misread. The weight.

Bit of a reach that Burt, but not the worst thing I ever heard. Langford would have struggled with the weight anyway I guess.

El Bujia · 03-16-2011, 06:31 PM

I'd wager Langford was the better fighter through and through without a second's hesitation. Ketchell strikes me as a sort of bigger Terry McGovern/Kid Lavigne type. A rugged, bullish banger without a whole lot of versatility (although that doesn't detract from their effectiveness), whereas Langford would be on any short list for the most well-rounded fighters to ever lace 'em up.

McGrain · 03-16-2011, 06:33 PM

I think Langford was better, and much more complete, but that was some ****ing MW division Ketchel mopped up. I mean I don't know that a better MW division has been flattened since.

Jorodz · 03-16-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

I think Langford was better, and much more complete, but that was some ****ing MW division Ketchel mopped up. I mean I don't know that a better MW division has been flattened since.

this is a question for everyone on this thread: do you think ketchel was past his prime or that he could have recovered sufficiently to still be the force of old (or even better)?

when i first read about ketchel, most of the material i saw felt that he had yet to reach his prime at 24. thoughts?

El Bujia · 03-16-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

I think Langford was better, and much more complete, but that was some ****ing MW division Ketchel mopped up. I mean I don't know that a better MW division has been flattened since.

I tend to think the next 30 years for the division was just as good or better. But then I guess noone really reigned supreme in those years save maybe Greb.

As an aside regarding the thread title, how highly do you rate the Gans win given the circumstances? Gans obviously wasn't in top form, and from I understand (according to Senya) the win has been propped up a lot more since, whereas at the time it wasn't considered nearly as highly. I'm assuming that would have to do with Gans's condition.

03-16-2011, 04:56 PM	#1
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 34,756 vCash: 1000	*The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the time. Ya'll musta forgot. [img]*********.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/langford_sam.jpg[/img]
Top

03-16-2011, 05:00 PM	#2
Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada, eh? Roy Jones, Jack Daniels and Grandma's Boy Posts: 10,825 vCash: 1139	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti that line belongs to the one and only ROY JONES JUNIOR! who's this **ing langford clown??!! kidding aside, to hold (in the eyes of many) conclusive victories over joe gans, joe walcott, stanley ketchel, jack o'brien and NUMEROUS top heavyweights puts him at the very top of the all time list. a very strong argument can be made based on his current resume for number 1 and if he got the fights he deserved, he'd almost be guaranteed a joint spot for number 1 with greb and robinson
Top

03-16-2011, 05:03 PM	#3
klompton Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 2,837 vCash: 1000	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti** Definately in the top two or three no questions asked.
Top

03-16-2011, 05:09 PM	#4
kmac On permanent vacation ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 2,062 vCash: 683	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti** agreed, the more and more i compare resumes, it's very easy to put langford as #1. he shouldn't be outside anyone's top 5 imo. he gets penalized because he fought so long ago and the lack of footage. probably the biggest bad ass to ever step in the ring.
Top

03-16-2011, 05:15 PM	#6
techks ATG list Killah! East Side Guru Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: ......Bit stalkerish to ask where I live don't ya think? Posts: 9,594 vCash: 85	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti** I would love to see more footage of him and some footage period of Barbados Joe Walcott. Both are top 5 ATGs and as much as I like Robinson, he is NOT the clear GOAT. I don't think anyone is as there still is Greb, Armstrong,etc. that's why I don't take ATG/"Who's the Greatest?" rankings too seriously. Great fighter that Langford was and no one in this time or afterwards will ever repeat what he did so that makes him even greater.
Top

03-16-2011, 05:17 PM	#7
PoliSari █ Geek Chic Superstar █ ™ Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: GTMSBT Posts: 0 vCash: 2522	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti** ahead of his time. wonderful talent. all factors taken into account, i have to place him near the top all time. one of my favorites without question.
Top

03-16-2011, 05:59 PM	#9
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 34,756 vCash: 1000	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti** No, it was not called a draw. It was called a draw by some, but more sources label it a win. Hence, in our own time, it is now listed as a newspaper win for Langford - due to Langford's being a winner in the opinion of more of the newspaper-men at ringside.
Top

03-16-2011, 06:31 PM	#12
El Bujia Champion East Side Guru Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: The dirty dirty. Posts: 5,369 vCash: 500	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti** I'd wager Langford was the better fighter through and through without a second's hesitation. Ketchell strikes me as a sort of bigger Terry McGovern/Kid Lavigne type. A rugged, bullish banger without a whole lot of versatility (although that doesn't detract from their effectiveness), whereas Langford would be on any short list for the most well-rounded fighters to ever lace 'em up.
Top

03-16-2011, 06:33 PM	#13
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 34,756 vCash: 1000	*Re: The Evening World scored Langford a shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the ti I think Langford was better, and much more complete, but that was some **ing MW division Ketchel mopped up. I mean I don't know that a better MW division has been flattened since.
Top