Maybe. People who fought both though are clear that Langford was the harder puncher and they generally seemed to consider him a better fighter. “I fought most of the heavyweights including Dempsey and Johnson, but Sam could stretch a guy colder than any of them. When Langford hit me it felt like someone slugged me with a baseball bat. It was like taking ether. You just went to sleep…”—“Fireman” Jim Flynn
Sam is listed by Boxrec as 74" - but Dempsey is listed as 73". I've seen a range of reaches for both. I think Sam's reach was longer, but I'm not going to get into a dispute about why your sources are better than the others that are available.
I'm sure I could get better with that, I am far from expert. Educate me, break down Langford vs Jeannette and show me why Langford is so much worse than Dempsey. You can also convince me that Langford fought with bareknuckle stance and that he had short reach. Just try it, I want to learn. So you ignore facts? Langford isn't smaller, he weighed 186 lbs in Jeannette fight, which is his best performance on the film (vs Dempsey's 187 lbs against Willard). Again, you are going against facts here. Why doesn't it seem good enough? Can you elaborate?
I did. What source are you looking at? The Ring Record book? Which is notoriously inaccurate for this era?? LOL. Nice try.
Dempsey was not 73" .. pretty much every measurement I have seen is 77 and like Langford, his arms look it .. very long ..
https://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/1923_jack_dempsey_tommy_gibbons_tale_of_the_tape__-lot51007.aspx https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/761148/1713537/restricted https://www.thefightcity.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/dempsey-and-wills-55.jpg Dempsey's reach was 73"
No. His shoulders were not broad, his arms looked kinda long, but nowhere near 77". 73" sounds about right. I posted 3 tale of the tapes which confirm 73." Even Boxrec now lists him at 77". Sorry, I know you're a huge fan of him