Langford is overrated

Men over 200 pounds consistently lost to smaller fighters pre-Liston so Langford is not an outlier here. And the typical heavyweight from that era was under 200. Someone like David Benavidez would be considered a good sized heavyweight in that era and might become champion.

I don't think Langfords success at heavyweight is relevant to men his size today who no doubt would have fought at heavyweight in Langford's era.

 

A couple of quick notes:

* The thing about the Gans fight is that he routinely fought consecutive days against viable opposition (he had done it earlier that year and the year before. So, I don't think that fact in and of itself can be used to detract from Sam's peformance. If you want to make any excuse, you could probably say that he probably took the inexperienced teenager lightly and wasn't expecting Langford to be able to hang. But, clearly, Langford could at that point. As stated before, Gans would go on to register some of his best results after the Langford fight, so he was hardly a spent force or anything.

* Langford was weighing in around 160 when he faced Ketchel. Contracted weight for their six rounder was apparently 165lbs according to Boxrec. So, I don't think there was much in the way of size difference, if any, between the two.

I dunno, I think the fact that someone who started their career at 140lbs and eventually worked their way to what was essentially world title status at heavweight (which Langford held briefly in 1913 after defeating Jeanette) is pretty remarkable. Tough to keep someone like that out of my Top 10 and he firmly stands as one of my Four Pillars of Heaven in my personal ATG ranking.

 

KInda wonder if the Top 100 Fighters of All Time thead is still buried somewhere around here, for some strange reason.

 

Yeah it is.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-top-100-pound-for-pound-all-time-greats.459918/

 

Drew, one of my favorite posters from back in the day !!

Seems like I was wrong, people do rank him as the GOAT. In that case, I disagree, but who am I ? I don´t even know all that much about that era and all the context!

 

Jack Dempsey was quoted as saying he would have never fought Langford before he (Dempsey) truly learned his trade in the late 19teens because he was literally afraid of Sam.

 

It seems to me that these 5 fighters have become something of a consensus top 5 among knowledgeable boxing fans in recent years, w/ the only debate being the order (myself, I would swap SRR & Langford).

 

You're just kinda being a boxrec warrior now. I deliberately put Terry Kellar there to see if you would notice the odd one out. But Sandy Ferguson (the 29-21-14 guy) beat Klondike Haynes, Barbados Joe Walcott and Joe Jeannette, and got robbed blind against Marvin Hart. That is most definitely a good win in spite of his ugly looking record. Guys like Klondike Haynes, Fireman Jim Flynn and Larry Temple also had questionable looking records, but they were tough fringe contenders who could last with the best of them and pull off the surprise great win at any time, too (Flynn with Dempsey, Temple with Walcott etc). Anyway, you still haven't touched George McFadden, Willie Lewis, Dixie Kid, George Godfrey, Young Peter Jackson, Kid Norfolk, Dave Holly, Gunboat Smith and Jeff Clark. They're still a huge part of Langford's resume, and you've only focused on the big and popular names.

I've already adressed those supposed asterisks above. Some hold some merit like Gan's condition, others like Ketchel being done, Gans being past it, and his record against Blackburn, not so much. His ledger is about as good as anyone's. Beat a prime but not quite healthy version of Gans (arguably the GOAT LW) as a teenager in his own game, ''drew'' with a top 15-10 WW in Walcott not much later, utterly outclassed a prime top 10 MW, moved up to HW to dominate 2 of the greatest HW contenders to ever live time and time again, and managed to KO a top 15 ATG HW twice before old age and blindess turned the rivalry one sided. And while in his mid to late 30s and almost completely blind, he dispatched an upcoming future world MW champion in 2 rounds in Flowers, who had already shared the ring with Kid Norfolk and Panama Joe Gans, and would fight the former for a coloured title in less than a year afterwards. He also beat all the guys I mentioned in the first paragraph somewhere in between. Guy's ledger is only second to maybe Harry Greb's.

 

Just reading through the posts in this thread, there is a very clear trend where the posters who are the most knowledge about Langford's era, and boxing history in a wider sense, are those that rank Langford most highly.

Personally, I think that speaks volumes.

 

Certainly, but it is good to have to answer the question of the original post and to review why Langford is considered so great, especially given the historical murkiness of his era. Some people may learn something new. Some calcified codgers may need a reminder regarding Langford's status rather than his status just being a kneejerk response.

 

Completely agree, very healthy discussion all round.

For those who haven't done the painstaking thorough research of posters who rate him so highly, it's worth at least entertaining the possibility that if/when they conduct similar research themselves, it will provide them with insights that will elevate their perception of Langford.

 

This is not true though.

How many champions before Ali regularly fought men well over 200lbs?

Jack Johnson is one of them, ironically given that he is often charged with feasting on smaller men.

Jack Dempsey is another.

Jack Sharkey it must be noted is another.

Joe Louis of course.

It is a fairly short list.

Langford of course fought a whole slew of men who were well over 200lbs.

 

I have the Clay Moyle book but never got to read it, gonna do it now, starting it tonight, about time to know more about Langford.

 

Very few of these men were world class though. Wills and maybe Tate are the only men significantly over 200 who Langford beat when they were top 10 heavyweights. Godfrey was years away from being a top contender and McVea's best weight was almost exactly 200 or just under so I wouldn't feel comfortable counting him.

Why are we just counting champions, contenders factor in as well and when you include them you have guys like Gains and Stribling who beat men well over 200.