Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

SuzieQ49 · 11-09-2011, 02:35 PM

I'll sum it up nice and short, cause I don't feel like going into detail. Sam Langford was made for Jack Johnson. A 5'6 stationary fighter who didn't move much, hardly moved his head, and was hittable was a prime target for a 6'1 defensive fighter who threw a nice jab, had very fast hands/reflexes and great countering ability. Langford had the punch and finishing ability to knock out Johnson, but he would never get to him. Johnson would box his brains out at long range all night and counter Sam to death whenever he tried to get in close. Even if Sam got Johnson in clinches, Johnson was stronger than Sam at a chizzled 210lb, and with plenty of functional strength. Sam would not be able to wear down Johnson with his strength. I can see why Johnson battered Sam back in 1906. Sam was simply made for Jack. The result would always be 1906 in my opinion.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUqhJzgSj4M[/ame]
Checkout this music right here, an amazing selection in sync with Johnson's style. I could watch this all day, I sometimes feel Johnson was so much better than his opponents he didn't even try.

KuRuPT · 11-09-2011, 02:46 PM

I agree. Sam doesn't beat Jack.. even between he years 1910 - 1916 in a 20 round fight. Jack wouldn't lose his title to anybody in a 20 round fight even past his best till Dempsey or Wills came along. He was just too good over that distance even past his best.

TartanSoldier · 11-09-2011, 02:48 PM

As much as I agree, Jack Johnson sure didn't.

thistle1 · 11-09-2011, 02:56 PM

Langford wasn't made for Johnson, he, like other brave fighters who Fought UP out of their divisions,

He/they were "simply too small"

he grant · 11-09-2011, 03:04 PM

Your assumption is based on Langford simply walking Johnson down and not having more game than the limited footage we have of him ... in fact Langford was very fast and had plenty of movement ... I'm not saying the best Langford beats the best Johnson but it would have been a hell of a fight ... there was a reason Johnson never fought him again and that most of their common opponents said post Reno Sam would have destroyed him ..

burt bienstock · 11-09-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

I'll sum it up nice and short, cause I don't feel like going into detail. Sam Langford was made for Jack Johnson. A 5'6 stationary fighter who didn't move much, hardly moved his head, and was hittable was a prime target for a 6'1 defensive fighter who threw a nice jab, had very fast hands/reflexes and great countering ability. Langford had the punch and finishing ability to knock out Johnson, but he would never get to him. Johnson would box his brains out at long range all night and counter Sam to death whenever he tried to get in close. Even if Sam got Johnson in clinches, Johnson was stronger than Sam at a chizzled 210lb, and with plenty of functional strength. Sam would not be able to wear down Johnson with his strength. I can see why Johnson battered Sam back in 1906. Sam was simply made for Jack. The result would always be 1906 in my opinion.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Checkout this music right here, an amazing selection in sync with Johnson's style. I could watch this all day, I sometimes feel Johnson was so much better than his opponents he didn't even try.

For once I totally agree with you !.Where did I go wrong ?

But Jack Johnson was too big,strong and elusive for Sam Langford. For good reason Nat Fleischer and others called Lil Arthur the best heavyweight of all. He
played with his opponents,never expending more energy than required. Strong,and sharp hurting punches,combined with cat-like defense, make him a favorite over most any heavyweight in history IMO.
And to think I once shook his hand in the mid-forties,as a youngster. He was killed a couple of years later driving to the Louis / Billy Conn fight.
BTW-Where is Reznick who produced this great clip ? Tis wonderful...

lufcrazy · 11-09-2011, 03:17 PM

I'd agree that prime for prime Johnson whips Langford (and just about anybody smaller than him)

From 1911-1915 it's a different story though: Johnson was unmotivated and out of shape; Langford was hungry and was destroying top 5 opponents like there was no tomorrow.

I'm hoping the usual boxrec brigade will actually do some research before pratting on about losses suffered by Langford during these 4 years.

SuzieQ49 · 11-09-2011, 03:22 PM

Burt you agree with me more than you think. We are both very high on Joe Louis, Stanley Ketchel, Rocky Marciano, among many others. We just disagree on Jack Dempsey's placement all time.

lufcrazy · 11-09-2011, 03:27 PM

On better quality footage I wonder just how his handspeed would compare

his head movement is pretty good, that is evident despite the quality of camera.

I do love those uppercuts though

KuRuPT · 11-09-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I'd agree that prime for prime Johnson whips Langford (and just about anybody smaller than him)

From 1911-1915 it's a different story though: Johnson was unmotivated and out of shape; Langford was hungry and was destroying top 5 opponents like there was no tomorrow.

I'm hoping the usual boxrec brigade will actually do some research before pratting on about losses suffered by Langford during these 4 years.

You think even in a 20 round fight.. lets say in 1915.. Sam beats Jack?

lufcrazy · 11-09-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KuRuPT

You think even in a 20 round fight.. lets say in 1915.. Sam beats Jack?

by 1915 sam had beaten the shit (and had the shit beaten out of him) by the top names in the divison whilst Johnson had coasted. In all likelihood Sam has missed his window by this point as Johnson will be fresher having taken much less punishment.

In 1913 I do favour Sam, by 1915 it's 50/50

mcvey · 11-09-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by he grant

Your assumption is based on Langford simply walking Johnson down and not having more game than the limited footage we have of him ... in fact Langford was very fast and had plenty of movement ... I'm not saying the best Langford beats the best Johnson but it would have been a hell of a fight ... there was a reason Johnson never fought him again and that most of their common opponents said post Reno Sam would have destroyed him ..

Care to post some of these primary sourced quotes?

lora · 11-09-2011, 04:03 PM

Well, i'm just glad you've cut right to the point and summed it all up for us Suzie.

he grant · 11-09-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcvey

[/u]
Care to post some of these primary sourced quotes?

Jeannette and McVey's are common enough .. Wills as well. In addition, the obvious manner in which he avoided fighting him speaks for itself.

SuzieQ49 · 11-09-2011, 04:07 PM

That woman was FINNNE Johnson was with in that video. I bet Johnson was a boss in the bedroom the same way he was in the ring. She loved her some dark sugar.

11-09-2011, 02:35 PM	#1
SuzieQ49 Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Boston, Ma Posts: 12,960 vCash: 1000	Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion I'll sum it up nice and short, cause I don't feel like going into detail. Sam Langford was made for Jack Johnson. A 5'6 stationary fighter who didn't move much, hardly moved his head, and was hittable was a prime target for a 6'1 defensive fighter who threw a nice jab, had very fast hands/reflexes and great countering ability. Langford had the punch and finishing ability to knock out Johnson, but he would never get to him. Johnson would box his brains out at long range all night and counter Sam to death whenever he tried to get in close. Even if Sam got Johnson in clinches, Johnson was stronger than Sam at a chizzled 210lb, and with plenty of functional strength. Sam would not be able to wear down Johnson with his strength. I can see why Johnson battered Sam back in 1906. Sam was simply made for Jack. The result would always be 1906 in my opinion. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUqhJzgSj4M[/ame] Checkout this music right here, an amazing selection in sync with Johnson's style. I could watch this all day, I sometimes feel Johnson was so much better than his opponents he didn't even try.
Top

11-09-2011, 02:46 PM	#2
KuRuPT Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,600 vCash: 500	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion I agree. Sam doesn't beat Jack.. even between he years 1910 - 1916 in a 20 round fight. Jack wouldn't lose his title to anybody in a 20 round fight even past his best till Dempsey or Wills came along. He was just too good over that distance even past his best.
Top

11-09-2011, 02:48 PM	#3
TartanSoldier Barnburner. ESB Full Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Scotland Posts: 334 vCash: 500	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion As much as I agree, Jack Johnson sure didn't.
Top

11-09-2011, 02:56 PM	#4
thistle1 Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,227 vCash: 1000	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion Langford wasn't made for Johnson, he, like other brave fighters who Fought UP out of their divisions, He/they were "simply too small"
Top

11-09-2011, 03:04 PM	#5
he grant Historian/Film Maker East Side Guru Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 6,476 vCash: 1000	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion Your assumption is based on Langford simply walking Johnson down and not having more game than the limited footage we have of him ... in fact Langford was very fast and had plenty of movement ... I'm not saying the best Langford beats the best Johnson but it would have been a hell of a fight ... there was a reason Johnson never fought him again and that most of their common opponents said post Reno Sam would have destroyed him ..
Top

11-09-2011, 03:17 PM	#7
lufcrazy requiescat in pace East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, Up North Posts: 22,722 vCash: 330	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion I'd agree that prime for prime Johnson whips Langford (and just about anybody smaller than him) From 1911-1915 it's a different story though: Johnson was unmotivated and out of shape; Langford was hungry and was destroying top 5 opponents like there was no tomorrow. I'm hoping the usual boxrec brigade will actually do some research before pratting on about losses suffered by Langford during these 4 years.
Top

11-09-2011, 03:22 PM	#8
SuzieQ49 Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Boston, Ma Posts: 12,960 vCash: 1000	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion Burt you agree with me more than you think. We are both very high on Joe Louis, Stanley Ketchel, Rocky Marciano, among many others. We just disagree on Jack Dempsey's placement all time.
Top

11-09-2011, 03:27 PM	#9
lufcrazy requiescat in pace East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, Up North Posts: 22,722 vCash: 330	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion On better quality footage I wonder just how his handspeed would compare his head movement is pretty good, that is evident despite the quality of camera. I do love those uppercuts though
Top

11-09-2011, 04:03 PM	#13
lora Fighting Zapata East Side Guru Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 5,454 vCash: 500	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion Well, i'm just glad you've cut right to the point and summed it all up for us Suzie.
Top

11-09-2011, 04:07 PM	#15
SuzieQ49 Undisputed Champion East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Boston, Ma Posts: 12,960 vCash: 1000	Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion That woman was FINNNE Johnson was with in that video. I bet Johnson was a boss in the bedroom the same way he was in the ring. She loved her some dark sugar.
Top