Does Anyone Think Sam Langford Is The Best Fighter Of All Time?

cotto20 · Jul 10, 2009

Does Anyone think langford is the best of all time?

discuss

OBCboxer · Jul 10, 2009

You can certainly make a case for him being the Greatest of All Time.

He beat ATG fighters from Middleweight to Heavyweight.

teeto · Jul 10, 2009

Haha, i just made another thread at the same time, what a co-incidence!

cotto20 · Jul 10, 2009

teeto said: ↑

Haha, i just made another thread at the same time, what a co-incidence!
Click to expand...

lol

teeto · Jul 10, 2009

I agree with OBCBoxer though.

janitor · Jul 10, 2009

Yes personaly I think he is the greatest fighter that ever drew breath.

janitor · Jul 10, 2009

OBCboxer said: ↑

He beat ATG fighters from Middleweight to Heavyweight.
Click to expand...

Make that lightweight to heavyweight:

Joe Gans (lightweight)

Joe Walcott (welterweight)

Jeff Clark (middleweight)

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien (light heavyweight)

Harry Wills (heavyweight)

PowerPuncher · Jul 10, 2009

I don't think his skillset was the best. He also gets allot of praise for doing a Pacquaio, ie being able to add allot of solid natural muscle to his body and going from 140lbs all the way to being a 180lb HW. His HW achievements are a little overrated though because as a 180lb you certainly have the strength to compete at the weight, Marciano was the same weight, as was Charles/Moore/Dempsey. This certainly wasnt really a small weight for a HW then

In his early career at 140lbs he got a win against LW great Joe Gans and had a 5lbs advantage. He also fought Blackburn who probably got the better of him at WW

His HW tenure was long, dominant, with no real names missing, however it is very questionable if he was ever the numuro uno of his time with the like of Jack Johnson and then Harry Wills around. That for such a small man is no bad thing

My only problem is him being called the greatest ever, best P4P ever. Tell me at which weight he was the best ever? WW? Blackburn probably got the better in his own time. MW/LHW? Maybe he has a case here and this weight maybe his prime weights but I don't think his skillset would stand upto Robinson/Jones/Charles for 3. HW? Obviously not

DINAMITA · Jul 10, 2009

I'm sure I've seen McGrain making a good case for Langford being the GOAT.

Personally, I can't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I cannot clearly and definitively split my top 5 (Robinson, Langford, Greb, Armstrong, Charles), so I cannot put forth who I think is the all-time number 1.

janitor · Jul 10, 2009

PowerPuncher said: ↑

IHe also gets allot of praise for doing a Pacquaio, ie being able to add allot of solid natural muscle to his body and going from 140lbs all the way to being a 180lb HW. His HW achievements are a little overrated though because as a 180lb you certainly have the strength to compete at the weight, Marciano was the same weight, as was Charles/Moore/Dempsey. This certainly wasnt really a small weight for a HW then
Click to expand...

Langford was coming in under the middleweight limit for some fights as late as 1910 at which point he was 27 years old. I don't think that Dempsey or Marciano or even some of the former light heavyweights you have listed would have been able to do this.

It is clear that his 180 lbs was not exactly the same as Dempseys 185 lbs.

In his early career at 140lbs he got a win against LW great Joe Gans and had a 5lbs advantage. He also fought Blackburn who probably got the better of him at WW
Click to expand...

He was 17 years old when he fought Joe Gans and 18 when he fought Joe Walcott.

Can you imagine a 17 year old fighter in his first profesional year being thrown in with Bernard Hopkins and beating him?

If he did would you make a big song and dance about the fact that he had a 5 lb weight advantage.

His HW tenure was long, dominant, with no real names missing, however it is very questionable if he was ever the numuro uno of his time with the like of Jack Johnson and then Harry Wills around.
Click to expand...

Jack Johnson wouldn't fight him.

He would have to be ranked above Harry Wills during the periods after he had beaten him at the varry least.

My only problem is him being called the greatest ever, best P4P ever. Tell me at which weight he was the best ever? WW? Blackburn probably got the better in his own time. MW/LHW? Maybe he has a case here and this weight maybe his prime weights but I don't think his skillset would stand upto Robinson/Jones/Charles for 3. HW? Obviously not
Click to expand...

Does a fighter necisarily have to stay at a single weight class over a substantial period to be the best pound for pound?

We are talking best pound for pound not best at any given weight.

I would suggest that having a long tenure in a single weight class at the lower end of the spectrum you fight over is a sign of weakness in the pound for pound stakes.
Click to expand...

PowerPuncher · Jul 10, 2009

janitor said: ↑

1. Langford was coming in under the middleweight limit for some fights as late as 1910 at which point he was 27 years old. I don't think that Dempsey or Marciano or even some of the former light heavyweights you have listed would have been able to do this.

2. It is clear that his 180 lbs was not exactly the same as Dempseys 185 lbs.

3. He was 17 years old when he fought Joe Gans and 18 when he fought Joe Walcott. Can you imagine a 17 year old fighter in his first profesional year being thrown in with Bernard Hopkins and beating him?

4. If he did would you make a big song and dance about the fact that he had a 5 lb weight advantage.

5. Jack Johnson wouldn't fight him.

6. He would have to be ranked above Harry Wills during the periods after he had beaten him at the varry least.

7. Does a fighter necisarily have to stay at a single weight class over a substantial period to be the best pound for pound?

We are talking best pound for pound not best at any given weight.

8. I would suggest that having a long tenure in a single weight class at the lower end of the spectrum you fight over is a sign of weakness in the pound for pound stakes.
Click to expand...

1. Whats your source for this I read he was fighting at 180lbs into his 27th year
2. No it isnt quite the same thing, Langford is much shorter but he certainly seemed more dominant with the extra weight
3. Boxrec has him as 20 when he beat Gans and 21 when he beat Walcott (despite it being a draw Langford is said to have had the best of it).
4. No but I wouldnt try and call a 140-147lb man a LW either
5. Jack Johnson did fight him and dominated him. Johnson was persecuted as a champion and clearly wasnt in a legacy building mood but he'd probably whip Langford easily again
6. Norton would be ranked over Ali for periods too he still isnt the better HW
7. The definition of Pound 4 Pound is if everyone is the same weight who is the best of the best? That's the original definition, legacy and achievements are a side issue. Robinson was the original P4P king and he was ranked as such so people could say 'No he can't beat the heavyweights but if everyone was the same weight Robinson would beat them'. Langford isnt the best at any weight in my book (even MW-LHW) so he can't be the greatest P4P by definition.
8. I'd agree with that
Click to expand...

McGrain · Jul 10, 2009

I think he's the best pick for that spot. I think he is the greatest.

janitor · Jul 10, 2009

PowerPuncher said: ↑

1. Whats your source for this I read he was fighting at 180lbs into his 27th year

Click to expand...

He was coming in at 180 lbs in catchweight fights at this age but was still capable of making the middleweight limit.

He was scheduled to fight Stanley Ketchel for the middleweight title before the latter was shot.

2. No it isnt quite the same thing, Langford is much shorter but he certainly seemed more dominant with the extra weight

Click to expand...

What makes you think that he was more dominant at heavyweight than at light heavyweight or middleweight.

3. Boxrec has him as 20 when he beat Gans and 21 when he beat Walcott (despite it being a draw Langford is said to have had the best of it).

Click to expand...

I have seen other sources quotng him at 17 and 18 respectivley.

4. No but I wouldnt try and call a 140-147lb man a LW either

Click to expand...

You could certainly call him a welterweight or even a junior welterweight today.

5. Jack Johnson did fight him and dominated him. Johnson was persecuted as a champion and clearly wasnt in a legacy building mood but he'd probably whip Langford easily again

Click to expand...

Langford grew considerably both physicaly and in terms of ring experience after Johnson beat him. The version that Johnson beat while dangerous was not close to a prime Langford.

6. Norton would be ranked over Ali for periods too he still isnt the better HW

Click to expand...

So basicaly Langford was clearly the best heavyweight in the world apart from Johnson for prolonged periods and Johnson maintained his position ahead of him by not risking it.

7. The definition of Pound 4 Pound is if everyone is the same weight who is the best of the best? That's the original definition, legacy and achievements are a side issue.
Click to expand...

On the contrary legacy and achievments are the ultimate measure of pound for pound since thy are the tangible material you can measure it by.

Robinson was the original P4P king
Click to expand...

No he wasnt.

The phrase has been used since the 19th century.

and he was ranked as such so people could say 'No he can't beat the heavyweights but if everyone was the same weight Robinson would beat them'.
Click to expand...

With Langford they didnt have to say that because he actualy did beat the heavyweights instead of building up endless title defences against fighters of similar size.

Langford isnt the best at any weight in my book (even MW-LHW) so he can't be the greatest P4P by definition.

Click to expand...

Could you name a middleweight or light heavyweight who achieved more taking into consideration acomplishments up to heavyweight?
Click to expand...

McGrain · Jul 10, 2009

Janitor, what would your top three Langford wins be? Order them if you can, but i'll settle for three names/dates.

janitor · Jul 10, 2009

PowerPuncher said: ↑

3. Boxrec has him as 20 when he beat Gans and 21 when he beat Walcott
Click to expand...

CBZ has it as you say as well.

The Nova Scotia monument to Sam Langfod implies him to be three years younger than boxrec and CBZ.

It is possible that they have got it wrong but if not then all the figures we have quoted get thrown out of line.

Log in or Sign up

Does Anyone Think Sam Langford Is The Best Fighter Of All Time?

cotto20 Boxing Addict Full Member

OBCboxer Boxing Junkie Full Member

teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

cotto20 Boxing Addict Full Member

teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

janitor VIP Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Does Anyone Think Sam Langford Is The Best Fighter Of All Time?

cotto20 Boxing Addict Full Member

OBCboxer Boxing Junkie Full Member

teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

cotto20 Boxing Addict Full Member

teeto Obsessed with Boxing banned

janitor VIP Member Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

DINAMITA Guest

janitor VIP Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member