Sam Langord - P4P #1

He's among them, of course, but the number one place is completely open to interpretation.

 

Overall boxing hadn't reached the level it would reach in the 40s-50s skills wise in those times.

ALso I think beating poor big men at HW that would be light heavyweights and cruserweights today isn't as great a P4P achievement as some make it out to be.

 

I'd have no argument with him being placed there, his resume is exceptional however i have robinson at number 1

 

Interesting match ups:

Langford-Mayweather - 140 (Langford is 20 at this weight)
Langford-Robinson - 150-155lbs (langford is 23, the version that faced Johnson)
Langford-Roy Jones - 175 (not sure when he hit 175)
Langford-Ezzard Charles - 185-190

To be honest I'm not sure he wins any of those. At 140 he would probably to be too raw to live with the Mayweather technical genius. At 154 Robinson boxes him to a decision. Jones is from a complete other planet and most probably wins a UD. And Charles height/reach, technical ability, talent and physical gifts makes him the favourate.

That puts his weight jumping into some perspective

 

You better believe it.

 

Do you consider Harry Wills and Sam McVea to be poor big men?

These guys were all time greats and basicaly superheavyweights without steroids.

 

Without question a top 3 all-time P4P, with only Robinson and Greb having a case over him.

Generally I put him at #2 behind Robinson.

 

In my opinion, yes, he is.

I have no problem with guys not ranking him at #1, however he shouldn't be out of the top 4, along with Armstrong, Greb and Robinson.

 

Tier 1 alongside Greb, Robinson, Armstrong and sometimes Charles.

 

The Greatest P4P of all time in boxing ,hey thats the Holy Grail of boxing

Sam Langford would wipe the floor with Mayweather at 140 and also wipe the floor with Klitchko at HW

Sam Langford is no 3 on my list

 

No but I haven't seen them box making it difficult to assess how good they were. They are great wins but the 00s-10s HW standards are hard to assess and

LANGFORD WAS A BONEFIED HEAVYWEIGHT HIMSELF. Langford was ripped at nearly 200lbs, meaning he didnt have a huge weight disadvantage. If anything the most extrodinery aspect was Langford added 60lbs of solid muscle mass throughout his career

James Toney has beaten Super Heavies on steroids and hes naturally not much bigger than Langford, but Toney for good reason isnt the GOAT

Langford isnt the only former smaller man at heavyweight

Langford - 140lbs at 20
Ezzard Charles - 160lbs in his 20s
Archie Moore - 160lbs in his 20s
Billy Conn - 160lber in his 20s
Patterson - former 160lber
Roy Jones - former 160lber
James Toney - former 160lber
Bivins - 154lbs at 21yo

Bare in mind those men started at heavier weights but the heavyweights they fought were bigger than the heavyweights Langford fought

Bottom line, Langford heavyweight campaign overrates him a little. Hes great ofcourse but clearly all those other men had just as much natural disadvantages facing bigger men

 

Yes they do because P4P isnt about weight jumping its about if everyones the same size who is the best, thats the definition.

Now for Langford to be P4P no1 he needs to at least be capable of beating the other all time greats in a certain weight class. Whether its 140, 160, 175. Can he do this, I don't think so in any of them.

Why would Langford win because its over 20rounds? Are those said fighters not fit enough to go 20rounds? NO, Mayweather for instance sometimes boxes 15miniute rounds interchanging sparring partners in sparring, and does 20rounds of sparring. If Charles is giving Langford a pasting coming into the 16th round is he going to collapse because its gone past 15? The amount of rounds is irrelevant other than fighters pace themselves a little different

Now I'm not saying Langford can't be your P4P no1, but if he is, it should be because at a certain weight whether its 150-180 hes the best at the weight ever, if hes not it doesnt matter how many greats hes beat