Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

Langford's record from 1911-15 isn't half as good as made out. Don't just look at the wins but also the losses and draws and the fact he was overweight during this period.

 

I asked for primary proof,if you have quotes from newspaper interviews ,then produce them. Otherwise your statement is worthless.

Sam McVey , to my knowledge , never said anything derogatory ,or negative about Johnson, they were firm friends, and Mcvey ,not only travelled with Johnson ,he lived with him and his wife a couple of times. Johnson paid for Sam's funeral.

Please show primary sources that Jeannette ,Wills,[whom Johnson sacked as a sparring partner because he could not handle the punishment], and McVey .EVER SAID THAT LANGFORD WOULD DESTROY JOHNSON ,AFTER RENO 1910.
IF THEIR QUOTES CONFIRMING YOUR STATEMENTS ARE ,"COMMON ENOUGH",YOU SHOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE FINDING, AND SUPPLYING THEM SHOULD YOU?

If you do not do so, I can only conclude that you are adopting the Mendoza defence,ie, ignoring requests for proof after making unsubstantiated assertions.

 

atsch

his record in 1910 is good enough as it is [Flynn (1-1-0), Ketchel, Jim Johnson, Kubiak, Jeannette, Clarke], but by virtue of the monumentous victory Johnson scored that year, it wouldn't be right elevating anyone above him.

From 1911 he had the meaningful resume as follows Jeannette (3-0-2), Lang, O'Brien, McVey (3-1-1), Ross, Dan Flynn (2-0-0), Smith (2-0-0)* Jim Johnson (2-0-1), Clarke (0-1-0), Wills (1-0-2) up until 1915

The loss to smith is quite disputed, the loss to clarke can stand but apparently that could have gone either way also. The loss to McVey is legit. some guys he beat more than thrice but it doens't really mean anything after the third victory imo.

He pretty much spanked everyone out there barring jack himself.

 

Perhaps "Adam said ....."

 

Perhaps indeed!

I purposely quoted Adam a few times last week ,expecting to get pulled up on it ,but it obviously went under the radar.

Meanwhile, we wait for those sources.:think

 

Over the period he has 6 losses and 11 draws and 1 NC out of 55 fights during this period, that's 33% of fights he did not win so he was hardly dominant. He was the best contender during this period granted but not by as much as people make out. He has plenty of losses to fighters several levels below Johnson as you noted

 

no he has 4, 3 of which are debatable.

you could also note he beat everyone he fought during this timeframe, knocking the majority out.

jeannette, mcvey, smith, wills, all knocked out by sam.

 

From 1911-1915 boxrec has him losing 6 fights and drawing 11 with 1 NC

He did beat everyone in that time frame, but he lost to allot of the best, none near the class of a Jack Johnson, the best had already been dominated by Johnson. Johnson was much more dominant in his pre-title run

 

you need to look deeper and put things into context man. from his 1911 victory over jeannette upto but not including his 1915 loss to jeannette, he was quite clearly the most impressive hw in the world as demonstrated by the breakdown I gave you.

who is comparing this run with johnson's pre-title run

we're talking about a possible rematch between the two with me giving the timefram I'd give same the best chance as 1911-1915 (by 1915 it drops to 50/50 for the reasons I gave to kurupt)

 

Where your theory breaks down, is in the fact that Johnson goes into nosedive in 1910, while Langford continues to improve.

Ultimately, you ought to be able to hand pick a point in the timeline, where Langford wins.

 

There is certainly some substance to your argument, but equally ,we should not automatically assume that Langford was allways in the best of shape himself during this period.
And, possibly some of his uneven results reflect that?

 

Probably.