Pac and Floyd, one of them are the best P4P All time...really? Where is Sam Langford?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Caelum, Jun 3, 2010.


  1. Caelum

    Caelum Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,404
    51
    May 16, 2010
    I've always wondered how people judge old time fighters compared to today's era.

    People like to spike up Pac and Floyd as the best of all time but you'll tend to get laughs from more of the fans that are readers/watchers of the sport's history. Quick name-drop of SRR tends to be the first name thrown out there.

    Most fans just don't even bother to pay attention to history. But with some "historians" going at it, I don't always know what they are basing their ratings on.


    So where does Sam Langford rank in all this talk about P4P ATG great?

    Good article on Sam:

    This content is protected






    This article is a quick read:
    This content is protected



    This content is protected




    Sports historian Clay Moyle describes Canadian-born Sam Langford as one of the most successful and yet little known boxers of the 20th Century. In the excerpt below, drawn from his recently publisher book titled Sam Langford: Boxing’s Greatest Uncrowned Champion, Moyle makes his case for that claim.



    Pound for pound, who was the world’s greatest boxer?
    Whenever boxing fans debate the question, the name most often mentioned is that of Sugar Ray Robinson. However, many boxing historians would argue in favor of Sam Langford, a lesser-known fighter born in Weymouth, Nova Scotia, in 1886.


    During the first quarter of the twentieth century, the prospect of facing the five-foot-seven-inch dynamo, who weighed no more than 175 pounds at his peak, struck terror in the hearts of most of his contemporaries, including heavyweight champions Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.


    In June 1916, the 21-year-old Dempsey quickly declined an opportunity to face an aging Langford. Recalling the incident years later in his autobiography, Dempsey wrote, “The Hell I feared no man. There was one man, he was even smaller than I, and I wouldn’t fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.”


    Jack Johnson, on the other hand, did face Langford, once, in April 1906, when Langford was only a 20-year-old lightweight who gave up over 40 pounds to the 28-year- old heavyweight contender. Johnson won a convincing 15-round decision over the youngster, but discovered just how tough the smaller fighter was and what kind of dynamite he carried in his fists.


    Two and a half years later, Johnson won the heavyweight championship by defeating Tommy Burns. Over the ensuing years, Langford and his manager, Joe Woodman, hounded Johnson in futile pursuit of an opportunity to fight for the title.


    “Nobody will pay to see two black men fight for the title,” Johnson said However, when Johnson grew weary of Australian boxing promoter Hugh “Huge Deal”’ McIntosh’s efforts to arrange a match with Langford, he admitted that he had no wish to face Langford again. “I don’t want to fight that little smoke,” said Johnson. “He’s got a chance to win against anyone in the world. I’m the first black champion and I’m going to be the last.”
    Years later, Johnson confided to New England Sports Museum trustee Kevin Aylwood, “Sam Langford was the toughest little son of a ***** that ever lived.”


    Despite participating in over 300 professional bouts in a 24-year ring career

    (from 1902 to 1926), Langford never won a world title. He defeated reigning lightweight champion Joe Gans by decision in December 1903 but was not recognized as the new champion because he came into the fight two pounds over the lightweight limit. Nine months later Langford fought the world welterweight champion, Joe Walcott, to a 15-round draw in a contest that the majority of those in attendance felt he deserved.
    Surprisingly, Langford would never receive another opportunity to fight for a world title. Although he faced middleweight champion Stanley Ketchel in a six-round fight in April 1910, this was a predetermined no-decision contest that was rumored to be a preview for a 45-round title bout on the West Coast later that year. Unfortunately, Ketchel was murdered before that event could be held.


    Although Langford began competing as a lightweight and then as a welterweight, once he matured physically, it became more difficult for him to keep within those weight limits. He was also aware of the fact that there was more money in fighting big fellows and subsequently went after heavyweights. Over the years he met and defeated many men much larger than himself: men like “Battling” Jim Johnson, Sam McVey, Sandy Ferguson, Joe Jeannette, Sam McVey, “Big” Bill Tate, George Godfrey and Harry Wills. Some of these fighters towered over Langford, who often also gave up as much as 40 pounds in weight.


    One opponent, “Fireman” Jim Flynn, said of Langford’s punching power: “I fought most of the heavyweights, including [Jack] Dempsey and [Jack] Johnson, but Sam could strength a guy colder than any of them. When Langford hit me it felt like someone slugged me with a baseball bat.”
    In 1917, Langford completely lost the sight of one eye during a loss against Fred Fulton. Remarkably, he would continue fighting with one eye for another nine years, the last few with limited sight out of his one “good” eye. In 1923 he captured the Mexican heavyweight title in a contest at which he had to rely on his handlers to help guide him into the ring and to his corner. Langford’s assistants were so concerned about his eyesight that they wanted to call the fight off, but Langford refused: He needed the money.


    Sam fought for another two years while his eyesight continued to fail, until in August 1925, in his last professional bout, he was forced to quit in the opening round of a fight when it became obvious that he couldn’t see his opponent at all.


    By 1944, Langford was blind, all but forgotten and living in poverty in a dingy tenement in Harlem, N.Y. In January of that year, sportswriter Al Laney of the New York Herald Tribune decided to write a story about Langford, a great boxer who had seemingly vanished from the face of the earth.


    The search proved futile for quite a while. Many people Laney questioned were not even aware of who Langford was. At least a dozen others but claimed that Langford was dead. Eventually Laney learned that Langford was in fact alive and residing in a building in his city on 139th St. A woman who resided in the building led Laney to a tiny, dirty bedroom at the end of a dark hallway on the third floor. There, Laney found Langford, just one month shy of his fifty-eighth birthday, sitting on the edge of his bed, listening to an old radio.


    Langford had 20 cents in his pocket and was subsisting on a few dollars he received each month from a foundation for the blind. Twice a day, two young boys would come by and take him to a restaurant for breakfast and a second meal late in the afternoon. Langford told Laney that he the rest of his time sitting alone in his dark bedroom with only his radio for company.
    When he’d gathered the information he needed for his story, Laney went back to the office and banged out the story on his typewriter for the paper. But he didn’t stop there: He was so moved by Langford’s situation that he initiated a drive with a group of New York businessmen and -women that raised $10,892 for a trust fund for Langford. In April of 1945, the money was invested in an insurance company so that Langford would receive an annuity of $49.18 a month for life.


    In 1952, Langford moved back to Boston and quietly lived out the remaining years of his life in a private nursing home. He passed away on January 12, 1956, just two months before his seventieth birthday and only ten weeks after being enshrined in the Boxing Hall of Fame. At the time of his induction, Langford was the only non–world titleholder to be so honored.
    Sam Langford never regretted his chosen profession and expressed no bitterness or remorse over the loss of his eyesight. He maintained a keen sense of humor and kind disposition throughout his life and always said that boxing provided him with a wealth of memories. In a statement attributed to him a few months before his death, he said, “Don’t nobody need to feel sorry for old Sam. I had plenty of good times. I been all over the world. I fought maybe 600 fights, and every one was a pleasure!”

    Sources:
    Clay Moyle, Sam Langford: Boxing’s Greatest Uncrowned Champion (Seattle: Bennett & Hastings, 2008)


    This content is protected
     
  2. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Neither Pac or Floyd are anywhere near the Top spot, not Top10, not Top20 - albeit one or even both may end up there - and only one of them has a case for Top30.

    The Top spot could be argued between Bob Fitzsimmons, Sam Langford, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Sugar Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles. Others that some argue up there too are Benny Leonard, Willie Pep and even Barney Ross.
     
  3. Pachilles

    Pachilles Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,294
    28
    Nov 15, 2009
    The reality is that Ray Robinson, Ali, Whitaker, Ray Leonard, Hearns and Hagler are quite clearly the best of the visual evidence era. If there were no film on these older guys the folklore and sensationalised documents, whilst cannot be accepted as proof, could not be dis-proven either, and the nostalgic crowd could hold their ground. However there is revealing footage on guys like the mighty Fitzsimmons, and turns out his style was a mixture of Charlie Chaplin and a Kangaroo. Infact judging on the amount of hugging and the awkward punching style, i'd say the idea for boxing was taken from watching Kangaroo fights. When blacks were given the opportunities to compete they exclaimed, "these white dudes craaaaazy" and subsequently invented their own style, which has since, completely re-invented the sport.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,958
    48,017
    Mar 21, 2007
    Langford is #1
     
  5. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl
     
  6. TommyV

    TommyV Loyal Member banned

    32,127
    41
    Nov 2, 2007
    :deal

    Certainly top 4.
     
  7. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    268
    Jul 22, 2004
    While your post is simplistic it does raise an often ignored point. Its not the fact there werent great white fighters, its the question mark over their competition and era. The fact black fighters weren't allowed to compete on fair terms and had to sneek their way in the back door and were largely excluded. There are countless examples of blk fighters not been given the shots, and we know in the boxing game goes beyong that. The golden boy types are favoured in all manner of ways, gift decisions are nothing new. Tiger Flowers possibly got jobbed against Mickey Walker.

    Then there's the fact back in the day the talent pool was nearly exclusively made up of American's for 'World Title Fights', about as much a world title as the 'World Series'.

    Generally fighters from the 1900s-1940s seem to significantly improve technically and there many more quicker more explosive fighters. Surely this raises question marks over eras.

    Classic Forumites like to brush all these facts under the carpet, when assessing old timers and many old timers are romanticised and overrated

    I believe the sport has moved on, Freddy Roach recently said he thinks the sport has moved on in terms of physical standards, such as speed and conditioning, he said all other sports progress, why not boxing? Most of the fastest boxers in history have been over the 30years, that much is obvious. In terms of technique the sport has largely regressed in the last 20years, although some have been technically great within that period
     
  8. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    56,033
    10,453
    Jul 28, 2009
    :lol::lol::lol: I cannot help laughing. I tried to be dignified here in the classic but I couldn't stop it. I lied, I didn't really try to be dignified. That ship has sailed.
     
  9. TG1

    TG1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,965
    11
    Mar 4, 2010
    Yeah and Federer is considered the best at tennis, where's Fred Perry?

    Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  10. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    56,033
    10,453
    Jul 28, 2009
    TG...Don't make me show you this again, brother:


    This content is protected




    Well, technically I just did, but I mean again after that, I guess.
     
  11. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-whJCy5J6qg[/ame]
     
  12. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    268
    Jul 22, 2004
    The fact hes needed to put the worse bits together of 1 of the most boring fights in recent memory to try to pretend old timers are nearly as technically competant, pretty much shows they weren't in his desperation, and there punches/jabs weren't as straight as Wlad's either
     
  13. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    Willie Pep isn't contesting the number one spot for me. No way, the only way you could say that is if you had double standards and heavily factored in how good he was. Resume wise, too many of the greats you mentioned clearly outshine him.
     
  14. teeto

    teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

    28,075
    54
    Oct 15, 2007
    There's no devolution of boxing. Hell, i don't even believe there's been an evolution, not since Barney Ross anyway, that can't even be debated. The bottom line is, good fighters would win in any era. Vitali Klitschko is as 'primitive' as any fighter in history, Panama Al Brown was one of the finest pure boxers of all time. So the whole evolution/devolution thing is bull****. Fighters box/fight to their strengths and win if they're good enough.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,958
    48,017
    Mar 21, 2007

    To be fair PP, the point he is trying to make is that anyone looking at that footage of two modern fighters in that film quality would deduce that the fighters were ****.

    And furthermore, you've used footage of Greb mugging for the camera to discredit him. At least this footage is of a fight.