Sam Langford vs joe Louis

This is not strictly true.

Some people were proclaiming him as the GOAT before he even held the title!

 

True, that's why he's viewed as GOAT candidate at his division.

Langford wasn't a pressure fighter in a pure way, he was much different than that.

 

Here is a video that attempts to show his skills on old film.

And no, I wouldn't pick him over Louis. Langford was a freak, but I don't really like matching him up with later heavyweights or ATGs like Louis, though his pedigree at Heavyweight means it will always occur.

This content is protected

 

Langford was unbelievable and I love what I see on film. I can see him beating a lot of guys up to 200 lbs. Louis is just a bit too good along with his physical advantage to bet on Sam.

 

Here are a few thoughts on Langford from a while back (despite what I said about Kovalev, I'd pick Langford over him by KO).

 

Disagree, Langford was a stalk and exchange type of guy. You can see this vs Jeanette, Lang and Flynn. Have you seen these films?

 

Great video, cheers for sharing!

The comparison with James Toney seems pretty fair, I'd say Toney is more balanced on his feet though.
That's not a knock on Langford though, I think Toney's balance was an underappreciated part of his game.

I wouldn't back Toney to beat Louis either, and Toney has 3 inches on Langford.

 

I do, he's nothing like Godoy or Galento.

 

If might be shocking to some of the younger members of the forum, but Louis wasn't viewed as a top 3 all-time great until the 1960s. - Mendoza

This content is protected

Mendoza: It's mostly true. If you looks at where historians place people while Louis was active or a decade after retirement, he's not a top 3 guy in a majority sense. There are a few exceptions. Nat Fletcher who saw boxing from the 1890s to the very early 1970's had Louis rated at #6 for his final list.

 

He's way better than Godoy or Galento. We agree there I hope. Do you think Langford is a pressure fight for not? I certainly do.

 

He's way better than them, that's true. He would also definitely fare better than them.

I wouldn't call Langford a pressure fighter or swarmer. He was like a miniature version of older Foreman with better skillset and more experience/conditioning.

 

Based on what I've seen, I'd be hard pressed to call him a pressure fighter, too patient for that label.

Definitely looks like he applies a lot pressure with the feet though.

 

I am not sure that it is even mostly true to be honest.

You are taking the lists of a few historians, which are probably not representative of what sports writers thought at the time.

You would have found plenty of people proclaiming him the GOAT when he retired after the Walcott fight.

 

Langford laid back in some fights hoping to draw his opponents into a counter.Anyone describing him only as a pressure fighter hasn't done any research on him.
Clay Moyles' book is essential reading for those interested in Langford.

 

Langfrod runs Lang out of the ring with pressure, and gets in Flynn's face and Ko's him cold. See the films.

Langford certainly was a pressure fighter. He's not taking many steps backward on film. I would not call him a boaring in type, he had some subtitles to his game as show in RoughDiamond's film.

Louis had trouble with pressure fighters, and admitted he didn't like to be crowded. Louis did not have Langford durability, nor did he have his footwork. With his defense, Langford could land on Louis plenty.

As for weight, that would not matter much. Langford Ko'd Harry Willis when he was past this prime and Sam McVey when both were in their prime. Those guys had about 15 pounds or more on Joe Louis. I also think Langford was the naturally stronger man, and Louis wasn't much of a clinch and push type. Aurtro Godoy ( 1st fight ) bulled Louis around the ring when he wanted to.