My argument for Sam Langford being #1 lb for lb all-time

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by kmac, Jun 27, 2012.


Page 1 of 4
  1. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    1. could have been champion at lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, light heavy and heavy. i think if this was accomplished he'd be a consensus #1 among fight enthusiasts.

    2. with the era sam fought in, he had to play by a different set of rules. carrying lesser fighters some of the time and having to fight other future hall of famers and much larger, good fighters over and over again. jim johnson x12, mcvey x15, wills x17, jeannette x14, blackburn x 6, you get the idea

    3. he was 5' 6" 1/2 fighting mainly at heavyweight. he was the smaller man the majority of his career. this, imo, deserves a lot of consideration when you're talking about lb for lb.

    4. his resume and level of opposition. he fought everybody and was the most avoided fighter ever at the same time. 293 fights.

    5. this is the big one for me, the footage we have of him. the lang and jeannette fights show me a lot. at his height and usually being the smaller man, sam was a destroyer. there's no question he would have been great in any era.

    i'm not a big list guy but it's upsetting when you see some all-time lb for lb lists when langford is completely left off. this is just from ignorance of his career and probably the fact that he fought so long ago. i could go on but i think when you put everything together, no other fighter has what sam had and that's even with the lack of opportunities because of the time he fought in. sam is not the beautiful fighting machine that robinson was but when i take into account resume, h2h and skill, i always end up with langford as my #1.
     
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    #1
  2. turbotime

    turbotime Hall Of Famer Full Member

    42,571
    3,764
    May 4, 2012
    Real nice summary man. Langford was a beast. He hung in there with ketchel and gave him hell too by all accounts and most thought he got the better.
     
    turbotime, Jun 27, 2012
    turbotime, Jun 27, 2012
    #2
  3. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,822
    46,539
    Feb 11, 2005
    Amen, brother.

    The only ones I have in the same esteem are Greb and Robinson.
     
    Seamus, Jun 27, 2012
    Seamus, Jun 27, 2012
    #3
  4. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    agreed. if i had a list i'd have ezzard charles close to these fighters as well.
     
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    #4
  5. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    thanks. yes, if i recall correctly, langford was the heavier man in that fight. ketchel was a great fighter and it's too bad sam never got his shot at the middleweight title.
     
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    #5
  6. itliangladiator

    itliangladiator Active Member Full Member

    905
    2
    Jan 11, 2007
    Armstrong too. Langford should definitely be in the top 5.
     
    itliangladiator, Jun 27, 2012
    itliangladiator, Jun 27, 2012
    #6
  7. Senya13

    Senya13 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,971
    2,415
    Jul 11, 2005
    He could never have been the lightweight champion, even with modern weigh-in procedure. He had to to make 138 at 3 PM the day of the fight, he struggled very hard to make it, spent time on the road before going on the scales, but only reduced to 140 pounds. The lightweight limit was 133 lbs.
     
    Senya13, Jun 27, 2012
    Senya13, Jun 27, 2012
    #7
  8. Hands of Iron

    Hands of Iron #MSE Full Member

    14,701
    16
    Feb 23, 2012
    My top five consists of Robinson, Greb, Langford, Armstrong and Charles. They're all pretty much interchangable for the most part, with the exception that I don't think I'd place Charles inside the top three.
     
    Hands of Iron, Jun 27, 2012
    Hands of Iron, Jun 27, 2012
    #8
  9. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    according to clay moyle's book, langford weighed 136 the day of the fight and the lightweight limit for the fight was 135. boxrec lists langford's weight as 140 i believe. in moyle's book, it's written that langford was announced as lightweight champion after the fight but it wasn't until the next day when they took the title away from him because he was a pound over the limit.

    i've read different things on the fight but the one consistent thing i've seen is that gans was in no shape to fight from drinking the night before. still give sam a lot of credit here. he was a complete novice at this point.
     
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    #9
  10. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,427
    Aug 22, 2004
    I think he's got as legitimate a claim as anyone for that #1 all-time title, whatever that may mean. I say that not to dismiss the idea at all, only to illustrate the point that it's most likely impossible to accurately split the kind of hairs one would need to to separate him from the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, et. al........
     
    salsanchezfan, Jun 27, 2012
    salsanchezfan, Jun 27, 2012
    #10
  11. kmac

    kmac On permanent vacation Full Member

    5,005
    15
    Jul 29, 2010
    agreed. all of us look at different things when grading fighters. i think those other fighters had more of a level playing field than sam did in his time and that's part of the reason i rank him at #1.
     
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    kmac, Jun 27, 2012
    #11
  12. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,800
    11,427
    Aug 22, 2004

    Head to head, I can't think of a worse nightmare for any man to face. He would have been an absolute ***** to fight.
     
    salsanchezfan, Jun 27, 2012
    salsanchezfan, Jun 27, 2012
    #12
  13. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    400
    Jan 22, 2010
    It must be remembered that when Sam Langford fought Stanley Ketchel in
    1910, Langford was about 12 pounds heavier than Ketchel for that bout and Ketchel was at that time supposedly on opium use and in such dissaray that Ketchel went to recuperate at the home of Col. Dickerson in Conway, Missouri, where he was shot and killed five months after the Langford fight...Ketchel was a "shot" fighter, no pun intended...
    I have in historical order :
    Fitz
    Langford
    Greb
    Armstrong
    Robinson : in my top five, because they beat heavier top fighters and
    have the record to prove it...
     
    burt bienstock, Jun 27, 2012
    burt bienstock, Jun 27, 2012
    #13
  14. Cmoyle

    Cmoyle Active Member Full Member

    1,284
    14
    Nov 6, 2006
    "according to clay moyle's book, langford weighed 136 the day of the fight and the lightweight limit for the fight was 135."

    I see that I did list the lightweight limit as 135 in the Langford book. Would have to do some research now to see where I got that and if it is in fact accurate. I know that when Gans fought Holly on Bainbridge Island (WA) in July of 1906 that the Seattle Times a newspaper indicated that both men agreed to weigh-in under 135 pounds while the lightweight limit was 133 pounds and see that's the figure listed as the limit for his title fight two months later against Battling Nelson. Bottom line, Langford was over the lightweight limit at the time he fought Gans. I don't believe I have his official weight for any of the fights that Sam fought earlier in 1903.
     
    Cmoyle, Jun 27, 2012
    Cmoyle, Jun 27, 2012
    #14
  15. Cmoyle

    Cmoyle Active Member Full Member

    1,284
    14
    Nov 6, 2006
    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected
     
    Cmoyle, Jun 27, 2012
    Cmoyle, Jun 27, 2012
    #15
Page 1 of 4