Can Sam Langford be considerd the greatest heavyweight of all time?

The level he fought at was the best of his day. However, the filmed evidence that survives of some of the best of his opponents almost entirely deflates the contention that there were any quality heavyweights in that era. Were there absolutely no filmed evidence of that era, some of the fairy tales perpetuated in these parts might actually have some purchase.

The frequency argument is two-fold. Yes, it means a fighter is due to suffer the occasional bad performance due to luck, injury, lack of preparation. Conversely, it also means he is far more likely to pull a one-off and defeat a fighter of much better abilities.

 

I don't think there was a better hw between 1910 and 1915.

 

Did the Bell fight happen at all?
I seem to recall looking for a report and failing...or maybe that was some other contest?

 

i havent got time now, but i am pretty sure the bell fight was pretty well reported. Try the trove website it should find it. I think you might be thinking of something else.

 

possibly, but in this time Langford lost to McVey, Flynn, Wills, Smith,Flynn, Jeanette. He also had draws with McVey, Bell and Jeanette. And for much of these time, he was reported on as old, overweight and out of shape. In reality, he was in no better shape than Johnson for much of the time. It is hard to imagine many of the greats dropping the fights listed above when in their prime. Not so many, anyway. Of course, there are valid excuses available, so it isnt as far fetched as it might sound at first glance.

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/15429609?searchTerm=colin bell langford draw&searchLimits=

THere is a really small report Matt.

And this one interesting although a couple of weeks here, noting that it was on the level.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/26878700?searchTerm=colin bell langford draw&searchLimits=

And here is the round by round.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/53303032?searchTerm=colin bell langford draw&searchLimits=

It didnt take as long as i thought.

 

During this time he lost only disputed fights to flynn, smith and clark all of whom he knocked out during this span.

He lost a genuine fight to mcvey, no complaints there but he did knock him out twice the next year to establish dominance there.

His loss to jeanette marked the end of his prime run imo.

So if you look for a specific run try from march 1910 up until march 1915; losing only once to a man he'd go shortly onto knockout twice.

 

Ofcourse his spell of the best in the division begins november 1910 when he knocked out clark whilst johnson entered semi retirement.

 

okay, for starters, how about

April 1 Drawn with Sam McVey
Dec 26 1911 lost to Sam McVey
mar 24 1913 Drawn to Sam McVey
Jun 19 1913 Drawn to Colin Bell
Nov 12 1913 L to Gunboat Smith
May 1914 L to Harry Wills

And of course we need to not include teh poor results at the start of 1915. I dont see why you use March 1915 as I cant see a fight for langford between November 1914 and March 1915. Have i missed any?

 

I believe I mentioned the loss to mcvey as inexcuseable with the consolation he went on to twice knock him out.

I believe I referenced the loss to smith as less than kosher, again a man he went on to knockout.

All the rest are draws, mostly to people he would knock out in a rematch.

I used up until that date because in the next few months he would fail to secure victory whilst willard would knock out johnson thus claiming top spot in the division.

 

Charlie Rose listed Langford as his #1 heavyweight of all time. Nat Fleischer rated him #7.

 

That was in 1968. Quite a bit has happened since then.

 

He can b considered d greatest .
But not d most unstoppable which is reserved 2 McCall & Valuev .
Most unbeatable is Valuev if u understand that he carried his opponents unless he felt that they may actually hurt him .

 

Frank you wouldn't be so much of a troll if you didn't apply double standards to valuev.

Don't get me wrong, you'd still be *****, but atleast you'd be a consistent *****.

You're assumption that valuev never wanted to hurt his opponent could easily be used to excuse any losses by anyone.

Valuev was outboxed by donald, ruiz, chagaev, holyfield, haye. He secured an injury victory over big time. His only decent victories come against barret, rematch vs ruiz and lyakhovic.

Considering the amount of times he was outboxed, only a troll would declare him unbeatable.

Drop this valuev **** and try to retain some consistency across your opinions please.

 

Actually, if you think about it, frankenfrank is far more consistent than many pro-modern posters. Whenever we get a Klitschko vs. Marciano or Dempsey thread, some old-timer will say, "Oh yeah? Well if Klitschkos are unbeatable because they're so big, then what about Valuev?" And the modern guys will hem and haw and mutter something about big, skilled superheavyweights who can fight.

frankenfrank's basically bitten the bullet and said yes, Valuev is the greatest fighter of all time because he's big. Bizarre, perhaps, but you have to admire the chutzpah.