Sam Langford Vs Jersey Joe Walcott

Langford was more dominant than Walcott who never established himself as the best in the division. Nobody got the better of Langford in Langford's prime while the same cannot be said of Walcott. Walcott has losses to Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim and Rex Layne. Do they all rate ahead of Langford?

 

3-4 if you take out the louis robbery. also take note walcott was fighting first teir hall of fame greats in each title fight and he was extremeley competitive win/lose in every single one of them.

beat better heavies than joe louis and ezzard charles? please name them.

when did langford establish himself the best in the division? he never BEAT THE MAN jack johnson, in fact johnson easily beat the **** out of langford. walcottt on the otherhand cleaned out the divisions best contenders 1945-47 AND whupped joe louis in dec 1947 to win the title, but they took the title away from him on one of the worst decisions in history.......also walcott technically WON the heavyweight title in 1951 and held it for a year, so during that time its quite obvious he established himself as the CHAMP, or the best man in the division. langford never did this.

not true....Gunboat smith, sma

only ATG heavyweights joe louis and rocky marciano ever got the better of walcott in his prime, and louis series should have been 1-1. louis and marciano were defintitley better than langford. so this point doesnt hold any water.

langford had losses to young peter jackson, jim barry, gunboat smith, sam mcvea. do they all rate ahead of walcott?



ps i suggest u read fight reports. every single paper and ringsider scored the maxim fight to walcott, it was an outrageous decision. walcott should have been 3-0 vs maxim. he avenged that maxim controversial loss, TWICE.

 

Johnson could not make a credible claim to being number one due to his refusal to face the divisions best fighters while Langford was beating the best fighters in the division.

Louis was hardly at his peak when he faced Walcott was he?

 

Walcott did hold the title briefly but he only managed one title defense before losing it. I don't see how this establishes him as the best heavyweight of his time. Likewise, Jimmy Braddock was heavyweight champion but is not considered the best of his era

 

Johnson already whupped jenette 3-4 times, mcvea 3 times, and langford. in fact johnsons record against the 3 is something like 8-1!!! with the lone loss being a DQ controversial loss. Johnson was clearly the best in division, no comparison.

Two Points.....


1. Walcott best work was done 1945-1947 where he cleaned out the heavyweight division. He beat 8 top 10 rate contenders during this period inlcuding # 1 rated jimmy Bivins on a 43-0 run, # 2 rated Elmer Ray on a 65-1 Run, and # 3 rated 6'3 208lb Big puncher Lee Q Murray. He capped off the incredible run with a magnifisint 2 knockdown boxing lesson performance over ATG heavyweight king 6'2 213lb joe louis where everyone thought walcott won the fight. I would say walcott clearly established himself as the # 1 heavyweight alongside joe louis 1945-1948.

2. thats because he had an ATG undefeated heavyweight rocky marciano that came into the picture right during walcotts throne, without marciano there.....walcott would have reigned for arguebably 3 more years if not for rocky marciano.

I dont see how sam langford established himself as the heavyweight of his time, considering he never beat the best man in the divison.......Jack Johnson.

langford also never had to contend with a joe louis or rocky marciano the way walcott did.

Not Peak, but Joe Louis 1946-48 was still a great fighter, he still had rock solid power in both fists, still had his devastating combinations, still had his wonderful elegant jab, and at 213lb he was a big strong dude. While his speed/reflexes had somewut diminished a bit by 47, he kept his timing by fighting many exhibitions during the war...

 

Let's not forget that a 32 and 34 year old Langford ko'd Harry Wills twice ,a man between 6 2 and 6 3 and well over 200lbs,and a man who I venture to suggest would start favourite against Walcott.

 

quite possibly so, harry wills is by far the best fighter langford beat, in fact wills might even be better than jack dempsey. take note, harry wills did whup sam langfords butt about 12 or 13 times......so langford sneaking in a win or 2 here and there out of 15 fights isnt exactley that great of an achievment. Im sure there are many heavyweights out there throughout history that could beat harry wills 2 out of 15 times!! which was sams percentage against wills! there is no clear cut film of wills in his prime unfortuetley other than the 1924 wills vs madden film, but there is clear film of walcott and langford, and walcott impresses me more than sam does.

 

Wills beat Langford consistantly,only when Langford was past his best,my point was Langford HAD SEEN a 6 0 200lbs heavyweight with a top jab ,He Had Beaten one by ko twice when past his best himself.Actually I thinkWills might be overated ,his best wins are over men on the way down,and his other victories over M adden and Firpo were improved upon by Tunney and Dempsey .

 

Johnson beating fighters who are inexperienced and not yet in their prime seems rather irrelevant. I don't see how this helps his case that much.

I'm not aware of Langford losing to Young Peter Jackson or Jim Barry in his prime unless you want to say he was in his prime by 1906 and 1907 which I feel is too early.

I did not bring up any of Walcott's losses in the 1930s but the losses in the late 1940s and early 1950s do seem relevant.

With regards to Marciano and Louis being better than Langford I think one could make a good case that Langford rates above Marciano.

 

Pound for Pound, sure.

But at HW? Not a chance.

 

? Marciano was not a particularly big heavyweight. How do you figure Langford would have no chance against him? An over the hill Archie Moore gave him some trouble, and Moore was no Langford.

 

u call improving getting floored THREE times and knocked out of the ring having to be saved by typewriter??

 

What makes u believe archie moore was over the hill? as for moore being no langford, i completley disagree. I put them on equal terms. lastly, how did moore give marciano trouble? marciano knocked him down 5 times and won nearly every round?


What on film makes u believe sam langford beats walcott and marciano? what do you see on film that langford does very very well?

 

:What makes u believe archie moore was over the hill? as for moore being no langford, i completley disagree. I put them on equal terms. lastly, how did moore give marciano trouble? marciano knocked him down 5 times and won nearly every round?


What on film makes u believe sam langford beats walcott and marciano? what do you see on film that langford does very very well?"

Moore was 38 or 39 years old at the time he fought Marciano. If you don't like the term over the hill, you certainly have to agree he was past his prime. Moore knocked him down for only the 2nd time in his career, right?

I've seen Langford on film against Joe Jeannette in addition to the very limited film of him available that I know of against Lang and Flynn. He was very very good at countering and knocking the crap out of people He knocked out a lot of heavyweights much bigger than Marciano.

Look I think Marciano vs. Langford would have made for a great fight. I just completely disagree with the statement that Langford would have no chance with Marciano.

 

well it wasn't me who said that. I think it would be a war also!

i agree he was very good at stalking his opponent and getting into range as well. I do think he was very vunerable to a good long left jab though.

no way the jeanette-langford film exists? are u some kind of special collector? howd u get ur hands on it?

I mean, Archie Moore is one of those fighters who got better with age. I have film of archie moore from 1940 all the way to 1962, and i came to the conclusions his prime years were 1947-1955. marciano fought moore in 55. Moore was coming off a 45-1 run going into the marciano fight so i dont know how much past his prime he could have been.

yes for a flash knockdown. rocky floored moore 5 times.