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

You mean like you haven't addressed his 70 losses/draws ... or the fact that he never won anything ... or the fact that he looks like garbage on existing film we have ...or the fact that you can't even identify rounds in fights where he looked his best ... or rounds where he looked his worst ... or fights where you disagreed with the verdicts ... yet you have him rated the top pound-for-pound fighter in history?

And now your whole argument is a bunch of Jeffries' cornermen picked Langford (and Jeffries) to beat Johnson ... and they were wrong ... but I'm supposed to acknowledge they WRONGLY picked them ... and that's supposed to mean something?

They were wrong. Johnson beat Langford. Johnson beat Jeffries.

Hell, Jeffries isn't the best fighter pound-for-pound, either. And he probably has a better case than freaking Langford does. At least he was a dominant champion. TONS of guys over the last 100 years do.

Because Langford wasn't the best ever.

And this has been a complete waste of my time.

 

The only thing embarrassing is thinking Langford is better than any fighter who ever lived. Turn on a television, for god's sake. You can watch better fighters in DAZN's archive.

How did you address Langford's nearly 70 losses/draws?

You didn't. You 'generalized' - because you haven't seen them. You can't even tell me any more about most of them than the blurbs on boxrec.

You addressed it with this generalization - "He did, but it needs to be kept in mind that he had a number of fights while partially blind, past-prime and also the rules of the era which clearly made draws more likely. That said, every effort should be made to properly appraise these fights on an individual basis. Certainly we're a lot further along than we were 15 years ago (though it's stalled recently)."

That's an answer?

In which fights was he blind? You don't know. In which did he look past his prime? You don't know.

More than 20 of the nearly 70 came between the start of his career and 1906.

You seem to base your entire ranking on his "ASTONISHING eight year run" and said he had as many fights as Hagler's whole career. He had nearly 20 losses/draws came during his "ASTONISHING" eight-year run.

Hagler didn't have that many losses or draws in his whole career as Langford did during his "ASTONISHING run."

The rest of his losses and draws came after that. Langford was losing and drawing the whole time. He wasn't amazing and THEN went blind and started losing.

The guy was never a dominant fighter. Never won anything. You've elevated him because it's easier to trash fighters YOU CAN SEE and pretend you're more knowledgeable than you are but, when asked specifics about his great performances and bad losses, can offer nothing but generalizations.

The irony is Langford looks like nothing special even in the fights we can see. But you won't even critique WHAT YOU CAN SEE. Because there's nothing we can see that shows he was better than tons of guys who came after.

It's a typical hipster argument. Can't offer specifics, and, when questioned, tell people they need to "read" more. When I say I've been reading about him since the 1970s, then I must've been reading the wrong things.

You don't know ****.

 

Brilliant The commentators were just talking about his heart to go with his iron chin and stone fists, apart from the one blip, and he quit. Perfect timing. That seems to happen far more in boxing than any other sport; a commentator will be saying fighter A lacks true power then BOOM. That said, I can't think of any examples off my head.

I wouldn't hold this against Duran. He was nearly 40 and a pro for over 20 years. His career had become rather meaningless compared to what it was.

 

What false claims? That guys who hated Jack Johnson and called him ****** from Corbett's corner said they thought Langford would beat him ... even after Johnson already dropped Langford and beat him?

That's what you're thumping your chest over? Good Lord.

All I got from you is Sam Langford is the best because
* IBRO said so ... and they don't rate anyone born in the last 63 years as any good except Leonard.
* John L. Sullivan ... who died 104 years ago in the middle of Langford's career, THOUGHT Langford could beat the guys a 112 years ago.
* That we're supposed to ignore the 20 losses/draws during his ASTONISHING RUN of fights over 8 years.
* And we're supposed to ignore the other 50 losses/draws before his prime and after his prime.
* Oh, and ignore the footage of Langford actually in the ring fighting, because he looks like **** in that, too.

Just pretend none of the bad stuff happened ... because none of us saw it happen ... and praise the good stuff ... even though we never saw that happen either.

A CLEAR #1. Obviously better than any fighters whose careers we can ACTUALLY SEE.

(Just don't watch any Langford footage, because if you critique him like other fighters you can see everything falls apart.)

Makes total sense. Typical hipster nonsense.

The fewer fights you can see, the HIGHER the all-time rating. And anyone who disagrees just 'doesn't get it.'

 

I hold it against him. It was his career - no one else's. He chose to keep fighting. (He fought for another 10 years after the Lawlor loss.) All the wins are his. And ALL the losses are his.

The Lawlor quit job was Duran's first fight after he was stripped of the WBC Middleweight title following his loss to Leonard in their super middleweight rubber match.

He was still considered the WBC middleweight champ in 1990 (a year earlier). If you don't want losses held against you, don't keep fighting and keep losing or quitting.

If Floyd Mayweather didn't beat Andre Berto and instead allowed himself to be stripped and then quit against a Pat Lawlor-type, would anyone rating his all-time standing say, "That's okay, I don't hold it against him. He was 20 years into his pro career?"

Hell no. Some guys get a LOT of passes ... like 20 years worth of passes ... like (in Langford's case) 70 losses/draws worth of passes ... and some get none at all.

When picking #1 pound-for-pounder all time, seems like everything should be considered. Hold everyone to the same standard.

To hell with nostalgia.

 

On the flipside...

It cuts both ways. Better film allows you to watch Floyd get staggered, yes. It also allows you to watch his defense in crisp high definition. The chance for greater scrutiny helps Floyd as much as it hurts him. Guys like Langford on old film look like grey stop-motion Harryhausen characters.

In general, I agree with you that people can be sloppy and inconsistent in their rankings. But even inconsistent rankings aren't always unfair.

 

You seem quite critical of everyone's lists when it comes to ranking greatness.

Or maybe, as @McGrain, mentioned, you are confusing best with greatest.

I notice you didn't participate in Rummy's greatness survey earlier.


https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/survey-closed.651034/

For the edification of those of us who are doing it all wrong, would you care to provide us with the lists you would have presented, had you participated ?

If that's too much work, how about just your top twenty-five pound-for-pound ?

 

You want me to make a list of the top 25 pound-for-pounders in history because I don't believe a guy ... who boxed 100 years ago, who never won anything, and who lost/drew or boxed to no result in about one-third of his fights, and looks downright mediocre on film ... is the number-one pound-for-pounder all-time?

No one who thinks Langford is can even articulate why they believe he is.

Maybe someone start with that. Because it's nonsense.

They haven't seen about 290 or so of his fights. They can't point to any footage that shows him looking remotely better than a thousand other guys in history. They can't list the greatest rounds he fought. They have no excuses for why he lost to complete nobodies with crap records at EVERY stage of his career.

Stuff they would NEVER allow a modern fighter to get away with.

Instead, they just ramble generally about 'astonishing runs' where he still lost or drew about 20 times and never won anything.

It's laughable.

But let me put on my 'hipster hat' and come up with 25 guys there's no footage of ... who never won anything, who all have questionable results and bad losses which you'll be asked to ignore ...

And since they'll all be from around 100 to 130 years ago, I'll have the entire IBRO membership believing in a matter of hours.

Sound fair?

I'm going to bed now.

 

So, you have no answers then ?

Just a long rant of why you think Langford doesn't rate, but no thoughts as to who would make your list ?


For a man who is so adamant as to the correct method of determining who should or shouldn't be on an all-time greatest list, and who gets so passionately irritated with the "laughable" lists of other posters, you appear to lack the courage to post your own list.

No need to be scared here, Dubblechin...I don't think anyone is going to laugh, regardless of who you come up with.
It's only an opinion.

I've enjoyed your very amusing critique of my list (or at least my #2), but I would like to get some insight into your thoughts on this matter.

So, once again, who makes your top twenty-five ?

Even your top ten would be a start.

 

We know Langford was blind in one eye after his June 1917 fight with Fred Fulton.

 

Top 5 is probably going to be hard going by resume, but I can probably see a case for Jones, Floyd and Pac in the top 10.