Fred Fulton vs Sam Langford 1917: flawless performance by Fulton?

I understand that Langford retired on his stool. I also think that it was primarily this fight that caused the problems with his eyes.

 

No I am wrong.

His seconds threw in the towel.

Here is a link to an article in the New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D04E0DB133AE433A25753C2A9609C946696D6CF

 

By this time Langford was 34 and losing almost as many as he won,his vision was going and he was wearing out slowly but surely ,still a good win for Fulton who later won a dec from Sam

 

Fulton fought out of St Paul and he was the object of discussion on the radio and TV--they had a fifteen minute boxing discussion show after the Friday night fights back in the 1950's--and this victory might not be as impressive as it appears on paper. Jack Gibbons dismissed it when asked by a caller, saying that Langford had suffered a severe cut in training but went through with the fight anyway because it was a huge and rare payday against a top white heavyweight. Fulton reopened the cut immediately and Langford fought the fight blinded. There were no doctors at ringside in those days.

 

This is how I read it too. Fulton was at his best. Langford was slightly past his. The cut played a big factor. Still, this has to be viewed as a big win for Fulton.

 

Langford was significantly more than just "slightly past his" best. His best years were from around 1907/08 through the end of '12. By '13, he was acknowledged in contemporary reports as slipping, & that was 4 years prior to meeting Fulton. On top of that, his epic 14-round battle w/ Wills in '14 almost certainly had to take something out of him.

Langford was still considered a dangerous contender @the time he fought Fulton, & the manner in which Fulton won shocked contemporaries, but Langford was a far cry from the clear/consensus #1 contender that he had been back around '10-12.

 

He’s banned and the post is from 2008.

 

Maybe he's still w/ us in spirit?

 

The most important thing here is 2 months before and after this fight Langford easily knocked out Bill Tate and Andre Anderson who were 6 ft 6 and 6 ft 5 respectively. This was done with even more ease than with which Fulton had beaten him. However past his prime you feel Langford was or wasn't he was capable of beating good HWs at that size at that time.

These wins put a stamp of legitamacy on Fultons Langford win and should prevent said win from being attributed to Langford being past it.

 

Of course, Mendoza will forever haunt the forum

 

Langford wasn't washed at 31 in 1917. His ranking had declined but that is not the same thing. The best 5 to 15 HWs in 1917 were considerably better and/or bigger than they had been in the years Langford was considered the best. To the extent Langford was slowing down he was a 5.6.5 guy putting on 200 pounds. If he really was declining it would have been difficult from contemparies to seperate it from that. While Langford would have been noticeably "slower" this does not neatly equate to him being "worse". In 1913 Langford was 28 and would fight until 1926. Makes more sense to attribute the reports of him slipping to the weight than it does to him being old or past it.

In 1917 Langford could not beat Fulton or Wills who'd go on to knock Fulton out. Its possible those were the top 2 HWs at the time and were at the very least 2 of the top 5. This doesn't just apply to 1917 prior to 1930 they are probably 2 of the top 4 or 5 HWs ever HTH. Theres really no shame in being unable to beat them. Langfords earlier success against Wills can just as easily be attributed to Wills being greener as it can to Langford being better.

As discussed in my previous post Langfords loss to Fulton was sandwiched between Langfords only 2 knockouts over 6 ft 5+ "superheavyweights". And he'd go on to beat Tate again as late as 1922 a good 5 years later. Another one of Langfords best wins over a smaller fighter came later in 1917 when he knocked out Kid Norfolk in 2 rounds making him the first to stop Norfolk. The fact these wins came at that time is kind of a coincidence but it proves Langford was fighting at a very high level in mid to late 1917 and was in as good a rhythm as he was ever in(at least as a 200 pounder). Fulton destroyed Langford because he just too good for Langford to overcome being nearly a foot shorter.

 

Not quite flawless, since Langford rocked Fulton in the fight, but by 1917 Langford at 37 years old was overweight and wasn't taking the sport as seriously as he once did 6-7 years before when he was arguably the best fighter in the business.