Can anyone past 1990 be reasonably put in top 5-10 AT p4p lists?

I've been reading about Sam Langford since the 1970s. I've seen every film clip of him. Countless articles.

He wasn't the best fighter who ever lived. He wasn't the best fighter in any weight class ALL-TIME. He wasn't better than every fighter who came before him and every fighter in every division over the last 100 years since he retired.

He wasn't even considered the best fighter WHEN HE FOUGHT.

He lost and drew nearly 70 times.

I know it's 'cool' to name some fighter who frankly none of you have ever seen more than a couple minutes of as the very best ever based on fights you never saw and fights you can't even break down because you know so little about them, but he didn't look particularly good in any of the available footage either.

You can find footage of fighters since then looking better against far better fighters than the likes of Stanley Ketchel and Harry Wills.

There's nothing wrong with respecting the pioneers. But please, enough of this garbage that a fighter who lost and drew nearly 70 times roughly 100 years ago is the best fighter in any weight class who ever lived - then or now.

Maybe you should watch more fighters.

 

The best fighters in his era were the heavyweight champions. When he fought, the heavyweight champions were considered the best fighters. He was never considered BETTER than the heavyweight champions who reigned during his time. EVER.

Post any article from Langford's era where he is labeled the better than the heavyweight champion and any other fighter in the sport.

Saying he was respected doesn't make him the best fighter WHO EVER LIVED in ANY DIVISION then or NOW.

Good Lord.

Hell, post a video where he even looks good in the ring. (Because you sure as hell can't post one where he looks like the best fighter who ever lived.)

Explain how the best fighter who ever lived in any division could lose or draw 70 goddamn times?

He wasn't the best EVER in ANY division.

 

John L. Sullivan? He died 104 years ago. Hell, he died eight years before Langford even RETIRED. Sullivan is the expert?

I've probably seen more Sam Langford fights than John L. Sullivan did.

And the members of the International Boxing Research Organization have seen as much footage of Sam Langford as I have. Name any fight or any slice of footage where Langford looks remotely like the best anything?

The IBRO lists a guy they never saw fight as the second best ever and list freaking DURAN #7 - a guy who was mediocre to bad for the last 19 years of his career.

The IBRO doesn't list anyone who turned pro after 1976 in their top 25.

That Tracy Callis used to post at Cyberboxingzone. He's the King of rating fighters he never saw the best ever.

No pioneer in any sport is the best who ever lived. Certainly not a pioneer who never won anything.

Frankly, I respect the sport and the boxers I've actually seen fight too much to just rank guys based on how "I imagine they might have looked" in the ring, on years of losses that I just choose to ignore, and on "wins" where no official verdicts were rendered and drunk reporters (who may or may not have attended) felt won.

 

Now post the article where Jack Johnson ACTUALLY FOUGHT Sam Langford and beat him over 15 rounds. (BECAUSE HE DID.)

You're living in a hipster fantasy world.

Johnson flooring and beating Langford doesn't count.

Langford's nearly 70 other losses and draws don't count. Just the fantasy. Just the fights nobody can see.

 

Make little sense?

Jack Johnson BEAT Sam Langford, floored him and won a 15-round decision. It was one of Langford's nearly 70 losses/draws.

Sam Langford wasn't better than Jack Johnson. Jack Johnson got in the ring with him and beat him.

Sam Langford wasn't the best fighter in his era or the best fighter in any division over the last 100 years.

He lost a lot. He looks like **** on film. He never won anything when he boxed except the heavyweight championship of Mexico.

Sorry. He isn't #1 all-time at anything. Or #2 or in the top 10. That's so ridiculous.

It's about as ridiculous as the IBRO, which only rates one boxer who took up the sport in the last 50 years in their top 25.

Are you telling me in the last half century (50 YEARS), no boxer has come around who was better than Sugar Ray Leonard?

No boxer born after 1956 (in the last 66 YEARS) is one of the 25 best fighters ever ... just Leonard?

NONE? I like Sugar Ray Leonard. I watched all his fights while they happened. I followed his career live. Read all the articles. Bought the books. I hung out with Sugar Ray Leonard - just me and him - for an hour at a corporate gig once. We talked about boxing the whole time. I've attended a lot of fights over the decades.

Sugar Ray Leonard is not even the best fighter I've seen in the last 50 years ... let alone the ONLY fighter in the last 50 years who deserves to be considered among the 25 best ever.

Talk about living in the past.

 

I'm not misdirecting anything.

You're the one rating a guy who retired 100 years ago and never won anything better than any other boxer ever.

I just find rating Sam Langford the best fighter pound-for-pound ever utterly ridiculous.

I like to debate as much as the next guy, but even I couldn't come up with an argument to support that.

Because ... he WASN'T. Not by a long shot.

This content is protected

 

Well, there's an objective group. That's basically the entire Jim Jeffries entourage for the Jack Johnson fight.

They thought Jeffries was better than Johnson, too.

But Johnson beat Langford and Jeffries in the ring.

 

You mean like Jim Jeffries' entourage? Yeah, it's a little tough to take them at their word ... since Johnson actually beat the guys they thought were better than Johnson in the ring.