Gunboat Smith, Jim Flynn on Sam Langford

Yeah, he's getting bettered the vast majority of the time against Harry Wills but he's going to beat Dempsey or Louis.

 

He was well past his prime by the time he started fighing Wills. Wills himself said he was the kind of fighter you aspired to be like, but knew you never would be.

 

Well past his prime? I guess if you mean the fact that he wasn't at his prime weight as a Heavy, then yeah. That holds no relevance here, considering he's being judged solely as a Heavyweight in comparison to the other all timers. He certainly wasn't well past his best days as a Heavy. Perhaps the more the series went along, but at the start of their series? I wouldn't say so, not given his record at the time.

 

I would say Langford was definately past his prime when he first faced Wills in 1914. In my opinion the last year of Langfords prime was 1913. I think his loss to Gunboat Smith in 1914 could be construed as the beginning of the end for him, its just a shame that his end took about 12 years yet its a testament to his abilities and power that he was still able to remain a dangerous opponent even well past his prime.

 

Why? The Smith fight was supposed to have been very disputed, and a "loss" he recovered from via 3rd round KO not one year later. He went on to record wins over the same fighters that he'd previously been beating (Jeanette, McVea, and Wills himself) after that and his first fight with Wills. He may have been starting to slide around this time, but I wouldn't say he was already "well past his prime" by the time of the first Wills fight. Not by his Heavyweight standards, anyway.

 

Sam was definitely one of the best ever! No doubt about that! I just don't see him beating Dempsey head to head. It would have been a hell of a fight, though!

 

"Not by his Heavyweight standards, anyway."

I don't understand what you mean by the above statement, but I'm with Klompton, although still a dangerous fighter, the long downhill slide began after his return from Australia in 1913 when he put on weight and started to slow down. Of the period around 1914-195 Sam said, "It was along about then that I became sure that no matter how good I became I'd never be a world's heavyweight champion because the doors were closed. Up to that time I had trained rather seriously for practically all my fights. But I got disgusted and said 'what's the use of training, I ain't going anywhere in particular,' and I wasn't.

I wanted to go alright, but those white boys wouldn't let me. I had reached thirty years of age, and when a fellow is thirty, he isn't willing to train as when he is younger. So got nice and fat, and I never did get my figure back."

Sam didn't fight Wills until May of 1914. He knocked Wills out in the 14th round of their fight in November of that same year, and then lost a decision to him in their third fight in December of 1915. The long series between the two pretty much belonged to Wills there on after, although Sam did manage to knock him out a second time in the 19th round of their February 1916 fight. Obviously we'll never know how he would have done against either Dempsey or Louis in their respective primes. After Louis retained his heavyweight title with a tough 15-round decision over Tommy Farr in the late 1930's his trainer, Jack Blackburn, figured Joe was at least two years away from his peak, and by that time he said, "he would have Joe in Langford's class."

 

What I meant was that he was never going to be at his prime weight fighting as a Heavy, and by his standards at the weight (while still obviously an excellent fighter) not a lot changed during that time period. His record doesn't show any significant drop-off until a few years after the Smith/first Wills fights. He was always winning, drawing, and losing to most of the top black Heavyweight fighters like McVea, Jeanette, Wills, etc. Albeit more on the winning side prior, granted.

Either way, I already stated he may've been starting to slide around that time (which is backed by the quotes in your post), but I don't think he was already well past it.

 

Thanks for clarifying what you meant, I'll drop the "well" and go along with simply "past his prime."

 

Interesting quotes.

 

Clay, one thing which has always confused me about Langford is his record below heavyweight. He doesnt appear to have the same KO ability and power, if you look at his record. IN fact, in his prime against lighter opponents, his still excellent record, is not as great as it is against heavys. What would you attribute this to. Is it change in styles, improvement with experience, wearing the cuffs or something else?

Also, i have always wondered about langford as a light heavy (which doesnt seem to me to have been a title that highly sought after at the time), did Langford ever really fight or campain as a light heavyweight in his prime years, he almost seemed (according to boxrec) to jump straight from middleweight or lighter to heavyweight. When exactly do you think his prime years were (ie started not ended) and what was his weight, at is best?

 

"Clay, one thing which has always confused me about Langford is his record below heavyweight. He doesnt appear to have the same KO ability and power, if you look at his record. IN fact, in his prime against lighter opponents, his still excellent record, is not as great as it is against heavys. What would you attribute this to. Is it change in styles, improvement with experience, wearing the cuffs or something else?

Also, i have always wondered about langford as a light heavy (which doesnt seem to me to have been a title that highly sought after at the time), did Langford ever really fight or campain as a light heavyweight in his prime years, he almost seemed (according to boxrec) to jump straight from middleweight or lighter to heavyweight. When exactly do you think his prime years were (ie started not ended) and what was his weight, at is best?"

Good question. I know that early in his career Langford said that he hadn't learn how to "properly set" when he punched. He credited George Beyers with how to "set" in an instant and put more force into his blows. He also credited Joe Gans with furthering his education after their fight in December of 1903. But you're right, if you look at his record during the years 1904 thru 1906 you don't see many knockouts. I suppose that might be attributed to a number of factors. Like you say he was fighting smaller men durng that period of time, and he was small himself, he hadn't yet physically matured. Keep in mind that if he was born in 1886 as he said, and I finally concluded after all my research, he was still only 20 years old by the time he faced Jack Johnson in April of 1906. And many of those little guys he was fighting prior to that were not only faster and harder to hit than the bigger fellows, but some of them were very skilled defensively, including men such as Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn, and George "Elbows" McFadden. I remember at some point in 1906 that Langford expressed his preference for fighting the bigger men because they were easier to hit, and he was having more trouble making the lighter weights.

By the time we get into 1907 he's starting to knockout more of his opponents, and he's also becoming a full fledged middleweight as he continues to mature physically. In the next couple of years as he continues to develop and fill out he eventually becomes a light-heavyweight and really begins to show some power. And yeah, I believe that as he gained more experience he continued to improve and the number of knockouts increased.

Personally, I think he was in his prime from 1907 thru 1911, and possibly thru 1912. There was a period from late 1906 thru October of 1914 where he lost only two of 87 fights. One of those was a fight in Australia against McVey where the referee misintrepreted the rules and penalized Langford for infighting, and the other was a decision loss he suffered to Jim Flynn that he avenged with a knockout victory five weeks later. I believe his best fighting weight was in the range of 175-180.

As for the light-heavyweight division question, there was very little interest in that division at the time. It didn't originate until 1903 when Jack Root was acknowledged as the first title holder and after Jack O'Brien won it in 1905 he never really officially defended it. There was really very little interest in that particular title during the period of time (1907-1911) when it would seem that Langford would have been a natural to rule that weight division. Jack Dillon claimed the vacant division title in 1912 when he defeated Hugo Kelly, but he wasn't fully recognized as the champion of that weight until 1914 when he defeated a couple more contenders for the title. My understanding is that there wasn't much prestige, or money, associated with the title during that period of time, and it made more sense for Sam to campaign as, and against heavyweights as a result.

 

Clay,

Going by your research...then Langford was what 28 years old when he lost to Wills in 1914? Also Langford weighed just 187lb when he lost to Wills. That is not "fat" for him is it? I think Wills clearly beat a great version of Sam Langford in 1914.

 

"Going by your research...then Langford was what 28 years old when he lost to Wills in 1914? Also Langford weighed just 187lb when he lost to Wills. That is not "fat" for him is it? I think Wills clearly beat a great version of Sam Langford in 1914. "

Yes, I agree that he would have been 28 at the time. I don't know that I'd call him fat at 187 lbs, but he definately wasn't at his best weight. He'd put on weight by the time he came home from Australia in mid-1913. San Francisco sportswriter W.W. Naughton witnessed Sam provide a lackluster performance against Jack Lester on October 27, 1913. Asked to comment concerning his apparent lack of conditioning after that fight Sam said he had been idle the last six months in Australia and was now finding it difficult to remove the excess weight.

Naughton, commenting on promoters efforts to arrange a fight between Sam and "Gunboat" Smith expressed the opinion that Sam was in no shape at the time for a hard battle. Said Naughton, "Just at present Langford's condition is such that he is far from being a fit subject for a championship contest. He is so gross in fact that after he has exerted himself for a few rounds ona boxing platform he seems to puff out like a frog in the fable and he cuts a ridiculous figure. There comes a time in the experience of all athletes when the flesh which accumulates is there to stay and it is beginning to look as though Langford has reached that stage."

Naughton went on to say that while he didn't feel it would be impossible for Sam to rid himself of the surplus weight, it was his belief that it would take at least three months hard work to get into proper condition. He questioned whether Sam was still motivated enough to foregohis habits of easy living and train religously enough to achieve that level of condition. Concluded Naughton:

"As he is at present he is not fit to be sent against any man who approaches him in class. Many of the matches he signs to may be justified on the basis that his superiority to this opponents will manifest itself even if his condition is faulty, but displays of that kind can scarcely be described as sterling sport. He is in no shape to do himself justice." He fought Wills the first time six months later. Like I said in an earlier post I believe Langford's decline had begun by the time he returned from Australia in 1913. Still, it was a great win for Wills in my opinion the first time they met and he decisioned Sam.