Langford is overrated

Blackburn was credited w/ an unofficial newspaper win by some (but not all) sources in an over-the-weight/non-title fight. It makes no sense that you would credit that as "winning the lineal title" when you previously downplayed Langford getting a newspaper dec. over Ketchel.

He was likely the best P4P fighter in the world from around 1907 to 1912, a stretch where he KO'd HW contenders despite sometimes weighing at or near the MW limit, & his only losses during that time frame were to Flynn & McVey, 2 HW contenders that he subsequently KO'd.

How & where would you suggest a fighter like that be ranked?

That, & the fact that titles & title claims have never changed hands on newspaper decisions.

 

He actually gave the forum a heads-up that this thread was coming in other threads, & proceeded anyway despite pleas from other forum members to abandon his quest. He's the boxing forum equivalent of Captain Ahab.

 

Langford’s resume doesn’t need Ketchel or Gans to be insane. Wills, McVea and Jeannette (who he beat decisively in their series, not sure how you think Jeannette did) were the best heavyweights out there not named Jack Johnson. Langford kept it even with a near prime Wills until losing his eye even though was out of shape by all accounts and weighed in the 200s in some of their fights. On top of that you have wins over Norfolk, Flowers who was like a year removed from being in the title discussion, Gunboat, and possibly ATG and the best welter at the time in Walcott. Gans DEFINITELY wasn’t past it in fact he was at his peak, but out of shape due to the 6 round Holly fight the day prior. But it’s still an insane accomplishment to outthink and outgeneral Joe Gans as a 17 year old.

 

I secretly (not so much now) find ur argument holds some water…some. When u fight the best ur gonna rack up more losses. Just the way it is. Buttttt I do think if ur gonna be put as a top 5 ATG u should have been a bit more dominant…that also being said he was fighting guy three or four weight classes above him. Sooo lot to take in w this man. I prefer a more dominant in prime type like SRR or Charles. But I can see the appeal for Langford.

 

Blackburn edged Gans (no diddy) over a 6 round distance which many felt was a draw or even a Gans victory. Nobody viable recognized Blackburn as champion, and if we do count him as champion despite being way over the limit then I’d say Langford has a much, much better claim to the title than Blackburn did. He beat ‘the man who beat the man’ far more decisively.

You can argue Langford’s era had the biggest heavyweights until the 1960s-80s, it was by all standards a pretty huge era. Godfrey was 6’4 220, Wills was 6’2 210, McVea despite being 5’10 was nearing 220, Jeannette was 6’1 and in the 190s and Gunboat was the same. Langford beat most of these guys while either undersized or out of shape.

 

I'd say he had an ATG run from around 1907 (beginning w/ the Tiger Smith KO in England) through the end of 1912. He only had 2 losses during that time frame to HW contenders who outweighed him by 20-ish lbs, McVey & Flynn, & he avenged both of them decisively. He did have a few other close/drawn fights interspersed among that stretch, but again, he was typically outweighed by double digits in those as well.

 

Been awhile since I viewed his boxrec. That is more dominant then I remember

 

Honestly i don't know much about fighters from that era and the style of fighting is out dated for me that i don't really enjoy watching it. Plus there's little to no footage of most of these household names from that era.

Saying all that i have had a peek at Langford's resume before and i have to say it did impress me, but i don't have the knowledge of that era to really comment on whether @Dorrian_Grey has a case or not.

But i look forward to reading all the replies so i can learn a bit.

 

A vicious KO artist who fought from featherweight to heavyweight who also has the second deepest resume in boxing. You can kind of understand why some people would say he’s the goat

 

I recommend Clay Moyle's excellent book on Langford.

It's difficult, when looking back more than 100-years and (presumably, in some cases) absorbing an entire career as long and storied as Sam's via a perusal of Boxrec, to properly understand the context of the evolution of his career and of his major fights.

If you told me a 5ft 7ins 17-year old would beat Lomachenko at LW, then go on to be considered to be on the better side of a draw with Crawford, beat Canelo and beat both AJ and Dubois 7 or 8 times each, I'd say that's utterly absurd and will never happen. The concept would be ridiculous.

Yes, AJ and Dubois are bigger than McVea and Jeanette, but then Gans and Ketchel are far greater, relative to the evolution of their era, than Lomachenko and Canelo. Not to mention the vast depth to Langford's resume that I haven't cited modern equivalents for.

Langford is a lock top 5 p4p ATG on any well researched list, imo.

 

I don't remember the Ketchel fight being in any way debatable as to the victor. What was debatable was if Langford was carrying him or not to get a more lucrative rematch.

Am I misremembering?

Anyways, cool thread but no. He was that great.

 

Ketchel isn't greater than Canelo though. He was largely fighting guys his size and didn't move up in weight. Also lost to Papke. There is also the lack of longevity and the potential he would have had more losses with a longer career