Is Sam Langford The GOAT?

He definitely rated near the top of the upper echelon of greats in the same circle as men like Robinson and Charles

 

NO

 

And that is why SRR is the GOAT. He has the achievements and he also looked great doing it.

 

Langford also looks great.

 

Langford, gerb and Robinson (ezzerd and Armstrong too but not for me) are all interchangeably for the number one pfp spot, their resumes are just crazy.

 

No he does not, especially when compared to SRR.

 

Yes, he does. He's in some ways better than SRR on the tape.

 

Hell no, do you have bad eye sight ?!!!

 

Yes, I do but I wear glasses. You can overcome that in 21st century, you know?

Langford's power looks exceptional on the film. He's much different fighter than SRR, but there are some things I prefer in him over Robinson. He's more patient fighter with excellent ability to cut off the ring. He could set up power punches extremely well from various stances. I also like how he used feints.

Robinson looks exceptional on the film as well, but he didn't face HWs like Langford did while doing so. It's easier to look good against smaller opponents.

 

You don't think Sam being better suited to carrying more weight, and doing so, had anything to do with him fighting bigger men. I can't see SRR carrying 175-185 the same way, nor being as good of a fighter. You give me Robinson's skills and intangibles, and tell me he carries that weight excellently, I see him having no issue replicating what Sam did imo.

Anyways, for me, it generally comes out like this:

SRR
Sam
Greb
Armstrong/Ali

 

Of course I do.

 

Looking for Langford trivia, stealing other people arguments and looking for voters I am brought to a degree of sadness as always seeing an old post of Djanders- one I don’t think I noticed addressed to me and I kick myself, as always with Djanders posts there was something to unearth- a diamond of a story I imagine, I wished I had asked him about meeting Langford @Shay Sonya do you know the story?

 

Its quite possible but there are two points that need to be done:

1.Yes, Jack Johnson denied him a rematch but nevertheless, he was 1-0 against Sam the Man.
2. With no footage available it's impossible to tell accurately. Old time accounts may be biased.

On a funny note, I;d like to add that as a teen I confused Sam Langford and Sam Crawford. I used to think how such a great boxer could also have been such a great baseball player? Turns out they werent even of the same skin color!

 

When it is admitted..."lso, 4 rounders and newspaper decisions can enhance the status of a victory that may have been nothing more than a barnstorming stop in a podunk town to fleece the locals for a few dollars".

And Robinson looks so good on film with such fierce competition-although we do not have much when he was at his BEST at WW, + an insane amateur & pro record, then I cannot see as good a case for anyone else.

An argument above about him beating shorter guys?
The question is who is best P4P, not who is best for their height.
And Robinson fought heavier men than him-being less bulky but taller is one way to show your dominance in any division.

I do not take much away from a Langford or Charles due to a fairly long decline, but it has to mean something. EVen if it was due to illness or injury.

 

There is footage of Langford, though I agree its sufficiently lacking, both in quantity and quality, that written accounts give a better appraisal of his career as a whole.

Whilst I agree some accounts can be biased, both pro and against Sam, I wouldnt dismiss all historical accounts because they could be biased. Read enough of them and you'll get a balanced view on his record and how he was perceived in his own time.

I'd recommend Clay Moyle's brilliant book to anyone seriously interested in a balanced appraisal of Langford's career. It includes both positive and negative accounts of Sam and his fights. Imo the book draws some balanced and reasonable conclusions.