I know I am the only person on this board who calls it too close to call, but, I do. I know Louis had height, but, Galento was 5'8" and scored a knockdown. Marciano was 5'9" and beat Louis (granted, a very faded version of Joe). Take a look at the quality of Langford's opponents and the list is incredible. Also, Sam would have had a much higher knockout ratio had he not been forced to fight with handcuffs on in order to get fights. A very young Jack Dempsey apparently did not care that Sam was not a giant heavyweight as he turned down a fight with him after coming east because he could not get fights out west. Also, although short, Langford had abnormally long arms, so I don't think there would be that great a difference in reach. Not sure what Sam's reach actually was. Again, take a look at the list of opponents Langford fought.
It's very possible that Langford universally considered the best of the best could defeat Louis. The tendency is to pick Joe because he looks so spectacular, and he was, on the clear very modern film that is available. All we have of Langford are the typical silient film quality or poorer varieties. From what I see of Sam he was an incredibly great fighter. I see a great offence as well as a uncanny ability to walk through his opponents punches and not get hit. I'd have to bet on Joe but a victory by Langford would not surprise me.
Who truly can tell today what would be the outcome of a fight between a prime Sam Langford and the Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight ? the era's they fought in was so many decades apart and so different...But I in my gut feeling find it hard to believe that a Langford or most any heavyweight could survive the trip hammer blows of Joe Louis who decimated the concrete jaw of Max Baer...Peruse the film ESB, and marvel at the triple left hooks this version of Joe Louis landed. WOW...
I see your point 100%, but we have so many more films of Louis than Langford it is easy to be swayed towards Joe. Yes, the Baer fight was Joe at his best, but, we don't have films of Sam at his best so, as you said, who knows? Let's also remember, their styles were geared towards the number of rounds they were supposed to fight. I believe, I am may be mistaken, that for example, the third Langford - Flynn fight was scheduled for 45 rounds. Of course Sam was going to fight at a slower pace than if he were fighting a ten or fifteen rounder and that can be deceptive if not taken into account. In the book IN THIS CORNER Jack Demsepy said something to the effect the Langford was just about the best he ever saw. I don't have the book handy, so I cannot quote him directly. Maybe he meant pound for pound, not as a heavyweight. But, I understand your point, it would be hard to bet against the Louis who landed 99% of his punches against Baer.
I wouldn’t count out Langford’s chances completely. A few people who saw them both in action drew comparisons.
I go for Louis,tentatively. My reason is Langford was vulnerable to good jabbers,Louis had an excellent jab Hard to be sure but Louis looks the quicker handed. Langford looks nonchalantly wide open in some of the footage of him ,but that may be misleading because his opponents in those clips do not represent much of a threat.He looks great against the significantly better class of Joe Jeannette. Louis was dropped by slow handed Galento's left hook,and Buddy Baer's one,I've often wondered if he underestimated Buddy's 84"reach and assumed he was out of range when Baer lands that hook that put Joe almost completely out of the ring. The remnant of Louis was repeatedly nailed by Marciano's left hooks but Joe was severely diminished by then and too much should not be read into that defeat. Langford was not hard to floor , but he was very difficult to stop. Sam carried awesome power and knew how to inveigle his opponents on to it. Louis had some chin issues so its likely Langford drops him, could he keep him there ? As the Prince Of Denmark asks, "that is the question?" I say no, Louis by close decision or tko due to facial damage. Langford's reach was 74", nothing special for a heavyweight, but pretty astounding for a man under 5'8" , I'm 5'8.5" my reach is 72".
Just for the sake of discussion, Nate Fleischer, in his top ten heavyweights of all time, rates Louis #6 and Langford #7. His rankings are odd to say the least, for example he rates Schmeling #9, but does not include Baer who pounded Schmeling. Also he refused to include Ali in his top ten list. He also rates Fitzsimmons far above Marciano (who comes at #10).
Nat died before Ali's career ended. A good historian never ranks a fighter while their career is in flux and active.
I've always thought it was interesting that Louis's trainer, Jack Blackburn, was quoted after Joe's victory over Tommy Farr in August of 1937 as saying that Louis who'd become heavyweight champion as a result of his victory over Braddock two months prior, was at least two years away from his peak but by that time "he would have Joe in Langford's class." Who knows what might have happened had the two men met one another in their prime. That would have been some heavy artillery in one ring together.
Nat didn't like Ali, which is why he wasn't in his hw top-10... not because he was still active. Robinson and Pascual Perez both made the top-10 list in their respective divisions long before they retired.
Untrue. No one rated Ali as an ATG in 1972 when Nat died. Robinson was way past his prime when Nat rated him all time. It was obvious the book had been written on his career at that time.
In a 1942 interview, Gunboat Smith said that Langford would have beaten Dempsey and Louis too. "Louis is a great champ, I grant, but he's inclined to get hot and bothered when the going gets rough. Langford was as cool as an iceberg every minute he was in there. He never lost his head."
It is untrue Nat disliked Ali. Ring was the only organization that recognized Ali as hwt champion, and rightfully so, until he retired in 1970. Nat I am sure did not look upon Ali rejection of military service highly but that did not mean he disliked him. Once again by 1972 Ali was looked upon as a fringe ATG by most.