How well would Sam Langford do today?

He wouldn't even be a contender nowadays. I'd even bet on amateurs to beat him.
The man was great for his era and deserves praise for what he achieved then. That's all.

 

Have you finally watched at least part of Langford fight, or do you still believe that he fought in a stance provided by another poster?

 

It's not as ridiculous as some of your takes here

 

I've watched what I can find on youtube.
Have to say I'm not impressed.
I repeat, he deserves respect for what he did in that era, so let's just leave it at that.

 

Not impressed to the point that he'd be clowned by amateurs?
Closer to Louis-unimpressive or Fitzsimmons-unimpressive?

 

Closer to Fitzsimmons unimpressive.
I don't think either would stand a chance nowadays

 

Well. That was a roller coaster of a read...

 

Simple, I looked at his record.

 

Could you tell me what in his style wouldn't translate?

 

Everything.
My eyes tell me everything I need to know, he's too rudimentary.

 

Sorry, but this is lazy answer. I can say that Mike Tyson is too rudimentary for modern guys and my eyes tell me everything, but it wouldn't be a serious argument right?

 

Please tell me your top 20, I'm really curious who you have him in front of

 

I don't have an up to date top 20, but I think that he has a strong argument to be ahead of anybody who did not dominate a definable era. In terms of number of wins over world class opponents, he is up there with the best of them. The only real blemish is that he never held the title. It would be perfectly reasonable to have him ahead of people like Schmeling or Walcott for example.

 

Where do you have him compared to guys like Bowe or Vitali ?

 

Higher, based on the fact that he has much more depth.

That is not to say that there are not metrics by which they surpass him.