This question is for the Sam Langford experts and I say that with respect not sarcasm. A lot of historians have him no.# 1 on there P4P list. I have only seen most of the film available out there and he doesn't look very polished. I know he's a big hitter though. Is this ranking based on his resume? Or is it more. Fill me in please.
I'm not an expert on Langford or any other fighter, but Sam was an ATG puncher and if he felt he could take his opponents power he seemed to have been content to do so to get his own shots in.I believe this is shown in his fight with Flynn where he basically walked in drawing the lead, ready to counter with big shots.
He beat people from Joe Gans to Harry Wills, hard to not rate him super high off resume. The poor quality of the footage (atleast that I've seen), and the general lack of it, means I don't really judge off it at all. Bad footage can make fighters looks a lot worse, and even modern fighters can be a lot better than they look (or vice versa)
What's astonishing about Langford is that he likely could have stayed at 160 or 168 most of his career .. he moved up by choice because no one would fight him .. even as a short heavyweight with a decent reach he managed to hunt / walk down many of the men he fought .. his power seems to be unquestioned .. to me from the Jeannette film ( another truly great fighter ) he seemed like a Dwight Qwai/James Toney type with monster power.
Old footage has a lot of leaps in the frames, that's why it looks like they are wild and funny. This content is protected
I think Langford looks pretty good on film. His punching technique looks sterling, unlike anything we see till Dempsey with incredible leverage and speed on his hook. He doesn't seem to pay much attention to defense in some of the footage but that seems more to be his utter disregard for his opponents' ability to hurt him. He certainly looks the boss in the available footage.
Older footage also has about 100 fewer punches thrown a round and about 2:40 of clinching over three minutes. If they saw Vitali back then, he'd be considered the greatest thing to ever walk the earth. This content is protected
If sterling means throwing roundhouse uppercuts because basically nobody jabbed or countered back then, I agree.
Seamus said it best. Langford in the Jeanette Film looked very offensively sound in the punching department. His left hook was thrown with great leverage, body torque and explosive power coming from the legs and hips. Defensively, he was never in trouble nor did his opponent seem capable of mounting a credible offensive attack against him so Langford did not show his true prowess in his defense/counterpunching abilities If he had them Langford displayed the best offense on film out of the old timers until Dempsey came along and showcased his combination punching. His resume speaks for itself, it’s incredible from welter-heavy
The historians who have him number one on their pound for pound lists were primarily people who read about his exploits and never saw him fight, or wrote about him for decades until finally seeing him on film, and then they blamed the film for him looking "less than polished." The pioneers of the sport were incredibly important and should be acknowledged and praised, but overall the guys at the turn of the 20th century weren't polished and look underwhelming today compared to many who came after. None of them should be rated #1 pound for pound anymore. For example, I don't care for guys like Mikey Garcia at all. I find him overhyped and kind of boring to watch. But the skill level of the opponents he's faced in his career so far is MILES ahead of the general skill level fighters like Langford fought over his long career.
Clinch for 2:40 a round and occasionally pull an arm free and throw a roundhouse uppercut or a rabbit punch over the top. Chuck Wepner usually exhibited more skill than Sam Langford does on film, if we're being honest. This content is protected