Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2012, 10:43 AM   #1
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,061
vCash: 1000
Default Langford's ranking at LHW

I don't think for one second that Langford is anything less than one of the very best fighters that ever lived that weighed around 175lbs.

My question for you guys is, who did he definitely beat when he weighed 175lbs or less when his opponent also weighed 175lbs or less, but where Langford also weighed above 160lbs?

Which fighters weighing more than 175lbs did he beat when he weighed between 160 and 175lbs?

How comfortable are you ranking him top 10 without detailed info on these numbers if you do so?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-03-2012, 10:46 AM   #2
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

I'm not sure about specifics regarding the limit, but I class the following as his lhw victories:


O'Brien, McMahon, Norfolk, Clark, Flynn, D Flynn.


He fought some of these at HW also but I'm confident he beat these in and around the LHW limit.

Any fight below 180 and above 164 from back then I'd call a LHW fight as the division was barely in existence.

I rank him number 15 btw.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:08 AM   #3
Legend X
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Langford's weight is a mystery to me.

Apparently he was 156 pounds when he fought Johnson in 1906.
He was 142 a couple of years earlier.

But by the 1910s he's way up in the 180s and 190s or 200 pounds.
What are we talking, steroids ??
Maybe just a fat bastard.
Legend X is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:12 AM   #4
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,061
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
He fought some of these at HW also but I'm confident he beat these in and around the LHW limit.
I hear you. For my part I feel that he would beat anyone weighing 161-175 between gloves and Tunney. But we don't give so many points for maybe as we do for actually, do we? Generally speaking?

I'm uncomfortable with victories counting towards ranking at two weights. I like it to be ironed out. I don't think Langford's 175 resume is all that special, though i'm happy to be corrected on that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend X View Post
Langford's weight is a mystery to me.
And to me. It's a headache and when I actually "sat down" on my LHW list today I found myself discomforted by him, and i've had him as high as top five before.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:18 AM   #5
Vic-JofreBRASIL
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,697
vCash: 1166
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I'm not sure about specifics regarding the limit, but I class the following as his lhw victories:


O'Brien, McMahon, Norfolk, Clark, Flynn, D Flynn.
Not an impressive group of opponents IMO.....OŽBrien and Norfolk ATGs (maybe Norfolk a borderline case actually), but I wouldnŽt consider a deep level of competition at the weight.....but obviously we have to consider that Langford wasnŽt a LHW...
Vic-JofreBRASIL is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:31 AM   #6
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
I hear you. For my part I feel that he would beat anyone weighing 161-175 between gloves and Tunney. But we don't give so many points for maybe as we do for actually, do we? Generally speaking?

I'm uncomfortable with victories counting towards ranking at two weights. I like it to be ironed out. I don't think Langford's 175 resume is all that special, though i'm happy to be corrected on that point.


And to me. It's a headache and when I actually "sat down" on my LHW list today I found myself discomforted by him, and i've had him as high as top five before.
I never count victories as double (for example armstrong fought some fights at 137 against top ranked lw's defending his ww crown, I'd classify it a LW fight).

Here's what I have on Langford:

HW: Wills (x2), McVea (x6), Jeannette (x7), Smith, J Johnson (x7), Clark (x4), Flynn (x2), D Flynn , Schreck, Ferguson - Wills (Dx2), McVea (x6), Jeannette (Dx4), Smith (D), J Johnson (D), Clark (Dx4), Ferguson (D) - Wills (Lx5), McVea (x2), Jeannette (Lx1), Flynn (L).

LHW: O'Brien, McMahon, Norfolk, J Clark, Flynn, D Flynn.


MW: Holly, YP Jackson (x4), Temple (x2), Lewis, - Blackburn (D).


WW: Gans, Elbows- Blackburn (Dx2), Holly (D), B Walcott (D).

He had so many fights I might have made some arithmetic errors here and there.

I only count losses in his prime which I estimate to run from 1909-1917.

I rank him 15th at LHW. From when he beat Clark in Nov 1910 up until Moha beat C Thompson in feb 1913 I think he was the best LHW in the world a claim he defended against O'Brien and Porky Flynn.

His resume is thin at the weight but it helps that he was not beaten as prime LHW and he holds victories over 2 HOF fighter's, Tom McMahon (who beat Jack Dillon when he was the best LHW in 1914) as well as Clark, J Flynn and D Flynn.

So achievement wise he was the best for a couple of years and resume wise he beat a couple of hofer's and remained unbeaten himself.

He's in this sort of area for me:


13 Bob Fitzsimmons
14 Jack Dillon
15 Sam Langford
16 Harold Johnson
17 Tommy Gibbons
18 Billy Miske
19 Jose Torres
20 Kid Norfolk
21 Jack Delaney
22 Joey Maxim
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:32 AM   #7
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic-JofreBRASIL View Post
Not an impressive group of opponents IMO.....OŽBrien and Norfolk ATGs (maybe Norfolk a borderline case actually), but I wouldnŽt consider a deep level of competition at the weight.....but obviously we have to consider that Langford wasnŽt a LHW...
Not deep. Decently top heavy though and without defeat. I rank his resume at the weight alongside the likes of lesnevich and maxim.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 11:39 AM   #8
WhyYouLittle
Stand Still
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 372
vCash: 500
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Haha. That LHW poll is really leaving a rotten taste. Langford started topping my list and ended up in a abhorrent position that looking back now doesn't make any sense at all, and he is only in there cause I'd probably feel worse if I'd left him out (which probably means he didn't belong there at all).

Last edited by WhyYouLittle; 08-03-2012 at 12:35 PM.
WhyYouLittle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:03 PM   #9
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

The only ways langford can make a top ten, imo is:

1) you massively rate on h2h

2) you have undertaken extensive research regarding the weights of langford and his opponents.

I'm not one of these who thinks a 174 pound man beating a 200 pound man is a measure of lightheavyweight greatness - that for me is a hw fight.

If it comes out that he and many of his early opponents (1909-1913) weighed below 180 than i'd reconsider my stance.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:33 PM   #10
Boilermaker
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 685
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
The only ways langford can make a top ten, imo is:

1) you massively rate on h2h

2) you have undertaken extensive research regarding the weights of langford and his opponents.

I'm not one of these who thinks a 174 pound man beating a 200 pound man is a measure of lightheavyweight greatness - that for me is a hw fight.

If it comes out that he and many of his early opponents (1909-1913) weighed below 180 than i'd reconsider my stance.
From your list, without looking it up, surely the Flynns and Norforlk were heavyweights?

And clark was pretty much a middleweight, if he fought at light heavy, it probably indicates that he was out of shape doesnt it?

You will also find off (assuming boxrec is right), that Sam was a heavyweight when knocked out the very old Philadelphia Jack O Brien.

This leaves Mc Mahon as the sole win. Interestingly though, in a fight where no weights are given (at least by boxrec again), McMahon who always weighed in as a heavyweight in his early fights, for some reason is thought to have dropped to a light heavyweight even though he was taking on a string of heavyweight contenders like Willard, Miller, Kaufman, morris langford, Gunboat, Lang etc. Surely the most likely scenario is that the willard McMahon weight is wrong and McMahon only became a light heavy when forced to do so against Dillon.


By your own criteria, unless i have misunderstood, Langford should probably be unranked at light heavyweight, and surely not anywhere near the top 20 that you suggested.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:44 PM   #11
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boilermaker View Post
From your list, without looking it up, surely the Flynns and Norforlk were heavyweights?

And clark was pretty much a middleweight, if he fought at light heavy, it probably indicates that he was out of shape doesnt it?

You will also find off (assuming boxrec is right), that Sam was a heavyweight when knocked out the very old Philadelphia Jack O Brien.

This leaves Mc Mahon as the sole win. Interestingly though, in a fight where no weights are given (at least by boxrec again), McMahon who always weighed in as a heavyweight in his early fights, for some reason is thought to have dropped to a light heavyweight even though he was taking on a string of heavyweight contenders like Willard, Miller, Kaufman, morris langford, Gunboat, Lang etc. Surely the most likely scenario is that the willard McMahon weight is wrong and McMahon only became a light heavy when forced to do so against Dillon.


By your own criteria, unless i have misunderstood, Langford should probably be unranked at light heavyweight, and surely not anywhere near the top 20 that you suggested.
J Flynn was a LHW during that timescale.
Norfolk was a lhw during that timescale and langford's weight was inconsistent so I've given him the benefit of the doubt.
Clark, no idea if he was out of shape, people fought across many weight classes then.
O'Brien was a fight between a man weighing 180 and a man weighin 170, class it as a hw fight if you want, for me it's lhw/
No reason to assume the McMahon weight is wrong, again people fought across weight classes.

So that leaves the guys in my list and based on my criteria he should be between 13 and 22, ideally 15th
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:45 PM   #12
Legend X
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post

I'm not one of these who thinks a 174 pound man beating a 200 pound man is a measure of lightheavyweight greatness - that for me is a hw fight.
Interesting.
On the other hand you would credit the same 174 pound man a great light-heavy win for beating a middleweight who weighs in at 161 to fight him.

To me, that's crazy.
But as long as you stick to your own criteria I don't see any harm in it.
Legend X is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:52 PM   #13
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend X View Post
Interesting.
On the other hand you would credit the same 174 pound man a great light-heavy win for beating a middleweight who weighs in at 161 to fight him.

To me, that's crazy.
But as long as you stick to your own criteria I don't see any harm in it.
That's entirely consistent!

a 200lb man beating a 174 man is a hw fight.
a 174lb man beating a 161lb man is a lhw fight.

If the opponents are great fighter's, it's a great victory.

lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:53 PM   #14
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 37,061
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

luf's criteria are crazy in my opinion, but it's unlikely there is a human being more consistent in applying them.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:53 PM   #15
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,606
vCash: 330
Default Re: Langford's ranking at LHW

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legend X View Post
Interesting.
On the other hand you would credit the same 174 pound man a great light-heavy win for beating a middleweight who weighs in at 161 to fight him.

To me, that's crazy.
But as long as you stick to your own criteria I don't see any harm in it.
Like if Apsotoli would have beaten Conn, that'd be a measure of his greatness as a lhw, not as a mw, get it?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013