Langford is overrated

A less enlightened forum would crucify posters who questioned Langford's greatness.

 

Eddie Chambers could obviously have made the cruiserweight limit had he wanted to, so do we not count him as a legit heavyweight win on Wlad's record?

People can get far too fixated on the number 200, which had absolutely no significance in boxing until it became the heavyweight limit.

No reason why we can't look at to contenders as well, but perhaps you miss the point.

The charge is often brought up against fighters of the past, that their opponents weren't "real heavyweights".

Personally I think this is a ridiculous argument, because you are measuring them against a standard that was meaningless at the time.

My point is that we have to ask two questions when that argument is brought up:

1. Is it true? (in this case no)
2. If it is true, how do they compare to other top heavyweights of the past?

 

McVey's best weight was over 200lbs.

 

You're in for a treat

 

Realistically the guys Langford beat would be extremely unlikely to enjoy success at heavyweight today so its not reasonable to hold Langford-sized guys like Canelo Alvarez or Bivol to the same heavyweight standards as Langford.

Langford beating Wills would be roughly comparable to Alvarez beating Gilberto Ramirez at light heavyweight/cruiserweight as Ramirez was around the same height as Wills and rehydrated to 200+ for light heavyweight bouts. Its not comparable to him beating Wlad or Fury in my opinion.

 

McVea was as light as 189 and beat Jeanette at 200 and Langford at 198. Given those are his best wins I would say that was a good weight for him.

 

May I ask why?

They were clearly big enough to compete today, if small heavyweights by todays standards, and they clearly had levels to their game.

Do you think that Joe Louis woudl be unlikely to enjoy success at heavyweight today by the same logic?

Harry Wills was 6'2''/6'3'' with an 84'' reach, and weighed 210 lbs. trained for a twenty round fight.

This is not somebody who would drain down to LHW, it is a small to medium sized heavyweight by todays standards.

A much more realistic analogy, would be that Harry Wills is what Hassim Rahman would look like, had he fought in Langford's era.

 

McVea started fighting world class men at the age of 19.

Care to look what our current Undisputed Champion weighed in at when he was 19?

 

Langford was 17 when he defeated Joe Gans . Not bad. Gans would go on to be world class for at least four years after that fight. He was 18 fighting Walcott and twenty fighting Blackburn. By all accounts not only did Langford handle Ketchel, he did so in a manner so that there would possibly be a much bigger rematch for the title. No one says Ketchel won that "exhibition" ...

How many former lightweights can you name that flattened heavyweights ? We give Duran deserved credit for winning a middleweight title ... Langford moved up in weight because of being constantly avoided and fought the best heavyweights of his generation and despite absurd size disadvantages he flattened most of them. Many universally say he was the hardest puncher they ever fought and these were heavyweights. How many heavyweights did GGG beat again ? I don't know if your post is serious or provocative but either way it's way off ... Try your next one of how average Ray Robinson was ...

 

McVea beat Langford at 198 in 1911 at age 27 in his 9th year as a professional. Nothing to do with being 19.

Wills is about the size of Steve Cunningham and Yuniel Dorticos both of whom campaigned extensively at cruiserweight. I don't see anything to suggest he would have trouble making weight.

Anyway, my general point is heavyweight credentials don't have much bearing in my opinion on who wins H2H. I don't think Jim Corbett or Joe Jeanette's heavyweight credentials will help them at all in a fight with Beterbiev for example. His lack of heavyweight resume won't stop him from decisively beating them.

 

In an all time HW argument a lot of these points have merits. Langford record against Fulton, Wills and Tate is awful and does not indicate he'd have had a chance against big HWs in subsequent eras. He was capable of beating men that big but couldn't do so consistantly. He also didn't fight most of the best HWs after 1914 of any size.

In a P4P argument none of this matters. Theres no one in the discussion with similar feats to poke holes in. He has 3 KOs over Wills and Tate. He also KO'd Andre Andreson who was 6 ft 5 212 right before getting destroyed by Fulton. Thats 4 KOs over 210 pounders. Someone like Harry Grebs only win over 200 pounds had a pro record of 11-41 and most non HW P4P GOAT contenders have none. On the contrary Langford was only stopped by Fulton and Wills twice. He fought guys that size dozens of times(even if it was just 4 people) and came out with more stops as vice e versa.

Normally when smaller guys go up to HW(actual smaller guys not skinny tall guys like Fitz and Braddock) they are relying on their skills to outpoint bigger men. Langford actually could give up his mobility and make his power felt by 210 pounders. Langfords also got the age excuse for his terrible record against big guys. Not that its neccessarily a valid excuse but its there.


And while Langford didn't beat many of them Langford did fight in one of the biggest HW eras of the 20th century. So guys Langfords size would not be at HW in Langfords era.

Because they were back to back the Anderson and Fulton fights are the perfect measuring stick for demonstrating the difference between a 6 ft 5 210er 31 year old Langford destroys and a 6 ft 5 210er who destroys 31 year old Langford.

 

At the age of 19 McVey weighed203,206 and 207 against Jack Johnson.
At 19 he weighed 208 against Joe Jeannette.
At 19 he weighed 210 against Tooth Pick Kelly.

 

See McVea's post, and understand that weights from this era are not very reliable.

No he wasn't.

Sure he might have been able to make cruiserweight by nearly killing himself, if his objective was to support your argument.

However the vast majority of fighters his size today, choose to fill out to 230lbs, and try to pick up a heavyweight strap.

It is always dangerous to form arguments, around hypothetical fights that never happened, and could never happen.

 

That's a lot of explaining away to do!

 

When you look at his record as a whole, I don't think Langford is overrated. I tend to rank him #2 p4p all time and probably #1 light heavyweight all time.