Langford vs Carnera

We know that Langford could beat fighters the height of Carnera. Why do you ignore that every single time? I get that Sam went beyond what you believe is possible, but it doesn't mean that facts are less reliable than your opinions.

 

What 6 foot sixers did he beat?

 

Bill Tate was 6'6 and a half.

He also beat:

6'5 Andre Anderson
6'4 Sandy Ferguson
6'3 George Godfrey
6'2 Harry Wills

along with plethoria of 6'0-6'2 200+ lbs fighters.

 

I think its important to keep Langford's record against big men in perspective. Langford clearly had problems with larger men. For example:
Sandy Ferguson was 6' 3.5" and typically weighed between 200 and 210 in shape. Langford went 1-0-1 against him.
Andre Anderson was 6' 5" and weighed about 210 in shape. But he had only won two of his last 9 bouts when he fought Langford and those wins came against weak competition. He was knocked out four times in the 9 bouts previous to facing Langford and each of those knockouts came before the third round had finished.
Gunboat Smith was 6' 2" and in shape was about 180 to 185 pounds and went 1-1 with Langford.
Godfrey was 6' 2.5" and weighed about 225 in shape. He supposedly fought Langford 3 times going 0-2-1 (One of those fights may not have happened). Those three supposed fights came within Godfrey's first 11 bouts. In addition to being stopped by Langford during this period he was also stopped by Jack Thompson and Battling Norfolk, neither were giants or anywhere near great fighters. He had been taken 15 rounds by middleweight Battling Gahee and in fact there isnt a single verifiable win on his record prior to his final defeat by Langford against an experienced heavyweight
Harry Wills was about 6' 2.5" and weighed about 215 in shape. Wills and Langford fought 17 times. Langford managed to win just 2 of those fights.
Fred Fulton was 6' 5" and weighed between 210 and 220 in shape. He knocked Langford out.
Bill Tate was 6' 6.5" and weighed between 220 and 230 in shape. He fought Langford 9 times with Langford winning four. Its important to remember that Tate lost half of his fights and one of those losses came against 5'8" light heavyweight Kid Norfolk and it wasnt close.
Jim Cameron was 6' 3" he weighed 210 when he fought Langford and, again, though he was stopped he lost to every recognizable name on his record, often by KO.

His record against those guys, the biggest of the big, was a combined 12-19-5.

Thats not exactly great proof that Langford was some phenom against big fighters. He clearly had problems with them (which is understandable) and Carnera was bigger than all of those guys. He was a whopping 6' 6" and was absolutely ripped between 260 and 275 pounds. Carnera may have started out as a sideshow but he learned on the job and developed into a fighter whose decent skills combined with his enormous size and heart made him a difficult opponent. He may not have been as talented as someone of Wills caliber but he was certainly as formidable as anyone else on that list. I would also add that pretending Carnera wasnt a professional athlete or fighter is ridiculous and really shows a complete ignorance of the guy. His athletic ability, not just his strength, was renowned for such a big man. Carnera didnt start boxing until he was in his 20s and the type of coordination that boxing requires only comes from the experience that Carnera was forced to get on the job. Never mind the fact that no trainer during this time or before had ever been able to field a coordinated big man. Willard, Fulton, et al were all gangly and uncoordinated. By the time he defeated Sharkey it was noted how much Carnera had improved. He would have been a problem for Langford no doubt and adding to the question would be which Langford would show up. Because unlike Carnera, who always showed up in shape and prepared to give his best, Langford could show up fat, untrained, and looking to dog it. Thats not a good thing when you have to be pushing around 275 pounds of muscle all night.

 

Soup cans, Primo had more knockouts than those guys had wins

 

That's a very solid post and I appreciate your take here. I think it's reasonable to say that Langford struggled against the biggest fighters he faced, but at the same time he proved that it wasn't impossible to win these fights against them.

I also have two points regarding your conclusion:

1. Langford faced most of these guys when he was clearly past his best. The fact that he did so well with such physical disadvantages, while being clearly past prime only shows that he was capable of beating larger men.
2. The record you provided might look quite unimpressive, but it's important to note that out of 19 losses Langford had against these guys, a whopping 14 of them were against Wills. If we exclude Wills fights, Langford's record stays at 10-5-4, which looks significantly better. Again, all of these fights were when Langford was past his best.

I also agree with your take about Carnera and I agree that unprepared Langford would likely lose against peak Primo.

 

So you think that Carnera was better than Harry Wills?

 

About the same but Prima was bigger. Willis beated Sam a few times

 

I don't think it's reasonable to equate Harry Wills to Primo Carnera, even though I'm higher on Primo than most here.

 

Langford punched harder than Rigo and Primo.

 

How can Langford lose?

 

Not sure why we would wonder as to which Langford might turn up - these matches should call in the best possible version by default. Langford was past his best and a lot heavier when he engaged most if not all of these bigger men - so the best possible version of that Langford is the one we have to take.

 

The size difference might steer the bookmakers towards favoring Carnera. But, by all accounts, Langford was savage brilliance and clearly capable of beating bigger men (and, in the case of Wills, beating bigger men, who were significantly more skilled than Carnera).

Anything is possible, but it is difficult to imagine someone of Langford's caliber losing to Carnera.

Thus, I would be betting on Langford W PTS.

 

So when was Langford at his best? Was it the Langford that fought Gans, a man literally half the size of Carnera? Was it the Langford that got dominated by Jack Johnson who has forever lived with the excuse "I was too small then but I got bigger". Or was it the Langford who was sent spinning like a top by the 5' 10" 195 lb Iron Hague before stopping him for paper HW title while weighing only 158. Or was it the Langford that won another paper title at HW vs Joe Jeanette in 1913 weighing 188 pounds, which most would say was when he was already past his best? Thats the problem with this argument. Langford was probably at his best at about 165 pounds around 1908/1909. By the time he started fighting HWs consistently he was fat and about 30 years old. The Langford that was in his prime and doing great against big HWs only exists in peoples imaginations. Go look at the HWs he was fighting anywhere his prime and you will see that almost to a man they were 5'9/5'10 and below 200 pounds. Thats only an inch and a half to two and half inches taller than Langford. Its also about 70 to 80 pounds lighter than Carnera. And most of those guys were losing as much as they were winning. Its not like these guys were legends. I just dont see Carnera as being any worse than the Jim Flynn who beat a prime Langford. He certainly wasnt any worse than Jim Barry or Sandy Ferguson both of whom drew with a prime Langford. And while we are talking about primes, why match this supposedly prime version of Langford with a Carnera who was fighting fixed fights early in his career while he learned his craft? Why not match him with the Carnera who killed Schaaf with a thudding jab, knocked out Sharkey for the title, and was the only man to defend the HW championship more than once in the decade between Tunney abdicating and Louis winning the championship? And for the record those defenses came against two pretty good challengers, Uzcudun and Loughran who frankly might have had at least as good a record against HWs as Langford.

 

But I already clarified which Langford. It clearly wasn’t prime Langford.

It was whatever was the best version of an older, heavier Langford when he WAS prevailing over/engaging the biggest men of his career.

Similarly, when people talk about pitting Jones Jr against past HWs, they’re talking the “size me up” version that faced Ruiz, not the prime, lighter version of Roy. Who wins between lighter, prime Jones 168-175 lbs and post prime HW 193 lbs Jones?

Or, who would you pick given prime 135 lbs Duran vs post prime MW 156 lb Duran that fought Hagler?

Point being, though past their prime at their best P4P weight, a fighter still might see an “effective” net again even after the advantages of greater size are offset by some measure of degradation in skill set.

Hope that makes sense.