Who fought better versions of Langford, Jeannette and Mcvey? Johnson or WIlls?

Clearly the primes of all three men, fall in the period between Johnson beating them, and Wills beating them.

You might throw into the argument that Wills failed to show his superiority over the best versions that he met.

 

It was a terrific performance but remember Jeanette was 34 at the time .. I also think it is important to note that Langford was a natural middleweight who moved up based on lack of quality fights , essentially no one would fight him .. every year after 1914 he became fatter , not carrying the weight especially well but making up for it based on his enormous talent .. I don't know how you can say for sure a fatter, slower, half blind version was better. His chin was not better. His power was not better. His speed was not better. His vision was certainly not better. He had a lot more mileage on him. Who's to say a 160 pound version would not have fared better ? Maybe an argument can me made for weight as some sort of strength but it is compromised by the impact on stamina and punch output ..we really don't know but it defies logic to me ..

 

Pretty spot on ..

 

Jeannette's record the last time Johnson fought him was 10-10-1. It seems kind of obvious he improved.

Langford fought Johnson as a middle. I find it a stretched argument that he was better fighting a big heavyweight as a middle than later when he filled out. I can't think of any historical examples which seem to back such a viewpoint. The opposite? Archie Moore. He was a good middle, but obviously did better against heavies when he filled out himself. Check his results with Jimmy Bivins. And the same with Jimmy Ellis. Would he have won that tourney weighing 160? Would Conn have given Louis as tough a fight weighing less than 160?

McVea was a teenager against Johnson. His records going into the Johnson fights were 6-0, 8-1, and 8-2. I think it a big stretch to argue he was better as a teenager than he was in his early thirties.

"Wills failed to show his superiority over the best versions that he met."

Yes, but he wasn't fighting middleweights or teenagers or guys with 50/50 records. Whether they were "past their best" when he got to them, they were experienced top of the division fighters. It is asking a lot to expect Wills to dominate them from the get go.

I agree that these three men probably peaked between the time Johnson fought them and Wills fought them, but on balance I think Wills faced the more dangerous versions.

Also, all kinds of fighters have been very good and indeed champions in their early to mid-thirties. A better argument than just listing age would be evidence from their records that they had lost it, but of course the evidence can't be fights against Wills, as that would be a totally circular argument.

 

I get your overall point but disagree .. Langford did not fit out as much as got fat .. more so each year. I think his speed and vision would have helped more than weight. Jeanette and McVey is debatable as well to me .. Moore was 5'11, Ellis 6'0 .. both carried their weight better than the 5'7" Langford ..

 

I don't think that we can take their surviving record at this stage, as being a complete article.

Probably much better to go on how highly regarded they were at the time, and how much a win over them meant.

I am sure that Jeannette did improve after he fought Johnson, but he also got old after he fought Johnson.

I called it for wills on this one, so no defence of my position needed.

I don't see why he could not have been better as a teenager than he was in his mid 30s.

He was clearly a very precocious young talent as a teenager, his reflexes would have slowed by his mid 30s, and a guy who is fighting the best as a teenager, is going to be pretty shop worn by his mid 30s.

I am going to stand by my decision to call it roughly even.

He was obviously green, but they were already on the decline, possibly badly in Jeannette's case.

Then I will explain my reasoning further:

Langford had lost to Clark, Jeannette and McVea, before Wills scored a conclusive win over him. Still a very dangerous fighter, but the writing was on the wall.

McVea stacks up very well on paper, when Wills beat him, but he goes into the tank after.

Jeanette is loosing to guys like Kid Norfolk, and it probably not in the championship class at this point.

 

Did Wills meet McVea and Jeanette after their epic battle in Paris? So for being lazy, but if that's the case then I think it's fair to say these guys were never the same fighters after that fight. There records suggest otherwise, but I have my doubts.

 

I'm sorry Ben but this just seems a bit outrageous. Think more a moment. Is their any other fighter in history you would argue as a 10 fight pro at 19 years old is better than his 31 year old self when that 31 year old self was still rated top 3 in the world?

I think there is no doubt the 1915 Sam Mcvea, who was rated top 3 in the world, still only in his early 30s, with significant world class victories was a much tougher version than the 10 fight teenager who was still developing.

You're making a big deal about age here. He was 31, But sam was in terrific shape, and very active against the best in the world in 1915 with a lot of success. Don't you make arguments about Willard being a great opponent for Dempsey despite him being 37 years old, inactive for 3 years, with hardly any training or sparring in between?

 

I will give you an example.

Mike Tyson was 19 when he beat Trevor Berbick, and 34 when he fought Andrew Golotta.

I don't doubt which version you think was better.

The teenager was being lined up as the best potential challenger for Jeffries, before Jack Johnson got involved!

 

I knew you would bring up Mike Tyson. First of all, he doesn't fit the description since Sam was 31 when Wills beat him. So take the 31 year old Tyson of 1997 who was fighting Holyfield for Millions of Dollars on Pay Per View in a unification match. Secondly, Tyson was a seasoned amateur with world class trainers handling and training him since age 15. Did Sam Mcvey at age 19 have such the same benefits to peak that early?

Again, you look carefully at Mcvey's record. He was higher rated, much more seasoned, still young enough, and scored much better victories in 1914-1915 compared to the 10 fight teenager of 1904.

 

I agree that McVea was good on paper at the time, but he went into the tank immediately after.

Even so, this was by far Wills's best win, before he met Fred Fulton!

 

1914-1915 Sam Langford was a better win than Mcvey considering how often Langford beat Mcvey. Outside of maybe Fulton, Dempsey did not defeat any man pre title as good as 1914-1915 versions of langford or mcvey. Not even close. Edward did a good job proving the black heavyweights of the era were better than the white heavyweights