"What in the world are you talking about?" With Langford, that he did not see Louis, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, Wlad, and Vitali Langford saw Dempsey and Johnson, and Jeffries at least in 1910. But one could make a top ten list w/o putting any of those three on it. Here is the top ten list from Ring Magazine in 1999 1---Ali 2---Louis 3---Holyfield 4---Foreman 5---Holmes 6---Marciano 7---Liston 8---Frazier 9---Johnson 10--Dempsey Since then Lewis, plus Wlad and Vitali, have had outstanding careers, and could reasonably replace Johnson and Dempsey. And if so, Langford did not see a top ten heavyweight. ATG yes, but just being in a sense an ATG no longer means you rank in the top ten or even fifteen. And we are talking rankings. "Shaking my head in complete disbelief at your ignorance." Live with it.
Certainly true, and I think it possible or even probable that Dempsey would have handled the earlier champions with the possible exception of Johnson. Doesn't necessarily mean he makes a modern top ten list though and it doesn't necessarily mean he tops Johnson or Jeffries if we are judging proving oneself in one's own era.
I don't think he is locked onto a modern top ten list, no. But I don't feel aggrieved if i see him in the lower half. And, as always, if you're ranking head to head, you can indulge whatever fantasy you like and not be doing something demonstrably wrong.
That's correct, that's what i've been saying. This is a rare instance where a Tunney loss would have severely reduced his standing; but he didn't lose, so that's irrelevant. But a devalued fighter can still represent a test at the highest level. Walcott against Marciano and Louis. Leonard against Duran. Estrada against Gonzalez. On and on and on the examples go. Devalued but inarguably a test at the very highest level; a victory over one of the best fighters that era could have produced, not something Dempsey ever got. Then this "highest test" has gone missing. Shame for Dempsey. But it's probably not the case - at the very least, evidence for it is limited and although it's posisble to place that evidence in a nice envelope and post it, the likelihood is that Tunney was better. I'm a huge admirer of Gibbons, perhaps his biggest fan on the forum, and i've little doubt that Tunney, who I don't care for, was better. Yes; but they can be rated highly enough to be denoted a test at the highest level by me. I'm sick of listing actually examples now, but i'm sure you'd concede there are very many? No, but why does that in any way prevent labelling Tunney a test at the highest level? That is just my point though. But there's loads of footage of loads of the guys I named at LHW. As i've pointed out, there holding the title didn't qualify them for this status (test at the highest level). But as i've repeatedly pointed out, that wouldn't make him a test at the highest level.
Both Wikipedia and box rec describe him as blind in the 1920's here is box rec on his later career "Langford would fight on the inside so he could feel his opponent and know where his arms were. At the end of a round, he'd use the ropes to feel his way back to his corner." There are other statements that he couldn't see by the 1930's. But I personally can't say for certain that he was totally blind, or at least that his sight was so impaired that even if at ringside he couldn't have actually "seen" Louis. But I think the weight of evidence is strongly that he did not see Louis at all. *But I would also point out that even if Langford "saw" Louis, the 1922 quote has nothing to do with what he would have thought of Louis versus Dempsey.
Langford had an operation that restored his sight after he retired from boxing, so it is possible that he saw some of the champions of the 30s, including Joe Louis.
Two things--first, if you make the big assumption that he could see well enough to see a boxing match--rather than just shadows--do you have a quote about what he thought about Louis or Armstrong or anyone else? Without such a quote, what difference does any of this make? Second--I think you are referring to the operation in 1935 and that a newspaper story reported that he could "see" but a lot of legally blind folks can see something. By 1944 no one even knew if he was alive when a reporter began searching for him. They found him in a darkened room where he lived all the time listening to the radio, except when he was led by others down to a café to eat. He was subsisting on a few dollars he received each month from a foundation for the blind. The reporter organized an effort to raise money for him and a trust fund was set up to pay him a monthly amount to help him live . He eventually ended up in a private nursing home.
Louis had been hit with how many flush right hands from a good puncher, I would think you would be buzzed and a bit disoriented
