Langford on facing Jeannette n Johnson

I think that's what Mendoza said.

 

It's not a popularity contest, but even If everyone hated you they'd still have to acknowledge your arguments with Mendoza prove your superiority in a h2h sense.

The real mystery is why you even bother. It's like watching two thousand Tyson-Marvis Frazier rematches.

In my humble opinion.

 

Not as well as 100 Thomas Hearnses !

 

Why do I bother? Well,to start I have an intense dislike of liars ,and especially those those try and "big themselves up" at my expense by challenging me to a fight from the safety of the other side of the Atlantic.

I also dislike pompous pricks who are up themselves, and refer to themselves as "boxing historians" assuming that they have the inside track on all the info out there. Then` when called on it ,saying I can't disclose that info, its been given to me as privileged information ,as one archivist/ historian to another.Or words to that effect. In other words weaseling out of providing a primary source.
Then self styled historian , tries to have me banned for calling him a bigot.


Back to the thread.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxIFXgVO9Qc[/ame]

 

I think it's safe to say that the late, great Joe Frazier was not the most astute of managers where matchups were concerned.:-(

 

I've seen nothing posted in this thread or in anything I've read that makes me believe Lanford could ever beat Johnson pre 1913. Even after that, liike against Williard, I still don't make Langford the favorite.

 

Gunboat Smith: "Langford versus Dempsey, both in their primes would have been bad news for Dempsey. He could be hit easily with a right hand and if anybody had a right hand it was the 'Tar Baby.' I'll go further and declare that Langford woudl have waded through every heavy champ we've had including the current soldier boy, Joe Louis. Louis is a great champ, I grant, but he's inclined to get hot and bothered when the going gets rough. Langford was as cool as an iceberg every minute he was in there. He never lost his head."

Joe Jeannette - November 1958 issue of Boxing Illustrated: "Sam would have been champion any time Johnson had given him a fight. And Johnson knew it better than anybody. Man! How that baby could hit, nobody else could hit like that. Well, maybe Joe Louis could, but don't forget that Sam only weighed about 160 pounds. Louis was about 195."

Jeannette, who fought Johnson seven times and was never stopped by him, was of course knocked out by Langford, one of only two times he was knocked out in over 100 bouts during his career. By the way, Jeannette stopped Langford the first time they ever met on Christmas day in 1905 when Sam was still only a middleweight. Johnson wasn't able to stop Sam when they met in April of 1906.

Still, I've always believed there's a good chance that Johnson would have boxed cautiously, tying Sam up and keeping him at a distance and taken a victory by decision if they'd fought a second time after Johnson won the title. But, to my mind Johnson feared Langford more than any other fighter during that period of time. He basically said as much to the Australian promoter, Hugh McIntosh, when he told him that Langford had a chance to win against anyone, and there was easier money to be made fighting white hopes. Later in his life, Johnson said Sam was “the toughest little son-of-***** that ever lived.”

There was a ten-year period from late 1906 thru October of 1914 where Sam lost only two of 87 fights, despite the fact that many of the men he fought were leading heavyweight contenders of that period. One of those losses was a highly disputed contest with Sam McVea where the referee, and sole judge for the match, misinterpreted the Australian rules against infighting, refusing to allow it. Tommy Burns, who witnessed that contest ringside called the referee’s decision one of the worst he ever witnessed. The other loss was by a decision to Jim Flynn, that Sam avenged with a knockout three months later.

It's a shame Langford didn't get another shot at him after he'd grown into a legitimate light-heavyweight. He was clearly the # 1 contender for a few years of Johnson's reign.

 

Gene Tunney is on record as saying Dempsey was hard to hit on the chin with a right hand. Smith never managed it in two fights.
Langford lost to
Jim Barry on 25th Sept 1907
Jim Flynn 8th Jan 1910
Sam McVey 26th Dec 1911
Gunboat Smith 17th Nov 1913
Jeff Clark 26th Oct 1914.
Langford also fought 9 draws during this time.

Jeannette was never stopped by Johnson , but he was floored multiple times, and of their 7 fights two were 3 rounders three were 6 rounders , In one of the six rounders ,Jeannette was on the verge of being stopped but Johnson ran out of time. In another one, Jeannette won in the second round by a disputed foul, after being under heavy fire in the first . the other bouts were a 15 rounder and a ten rounder. Since Langford fought Jeannette 13 times he obviously had more opportunity to stop him than Johnson.. He also fought him over more extended distances, again affording more opportunity for a stoppage.
Jeannette also stopped Langford, something he could not come close doing to Johnson.
Jeannette was having his 16th fight ,Langford his 47th.

Johnson did not stop Langford , he knocked him down twice, some say three times , cut his eye and broke his nose.

Johnson did not stop a lot of their common opponents. he didn't often try.

Johnson was not the puncher Langford was , because he did not stop common opponents this proves what?.

Jeannette was beaten by Sandy Ferguson and knocked down by him .Johnson played with Ferguson, what conclusion should we draw from this?

It is a shame Langford never got his chance at Johnson when Jack was champ. I think he was too much risk for too little reward.


Larry Holmes in the June 84 edition of K0,said it all, asked why he did not fight Greg Page.

Holmes said he had no objection to fighting Page, but he wanted more than the $2.2,000,000 that was offered citing the $4 ,500,000 he received for fighting two lesser risks in Scott Frank, and Marvis Frazier instead.

As Holmes and Johnson said "it's a business,".

For the record Johnson always stated that Sam Mcvey was the most dangerous of the black trio that were his contemporaries, and even into his sixties he never altered his opinion .
ps I'm getting your book soon, I have heard good things of it.:good

 

I don't believe that Johnson really thought McVey was his most dangerous opponent. But, I think these debates are pointless. I guess they're fun for some but I put more stock in what fighters and others in the fight game from those eras say than guys like you and me a bazillion years later.

Glad to hear you're going to check out the Miske book. You'll be one of the few

 

Reports of it are good, he must be in the running for the fighter with the biggest balls award. Sales will pick up , word of mouth.:good

 

Hey, just realized you said the following:

"Langford lost to Jim Barry on 25th Sept 1907." And, I see Boxrec has that fight listed as a Barry win. What's the source? Here's what I have concerning that fight on page 73 of my book on Langford:

"Barry came out fast in the second round, absolutely determinedto finish the job he'd begun in the opening session. But Sam met his rush with a hard right to the jaw. Barry was sent crashing to the floor head first, where he suffered his own count of nine before rising. Sam gave Barry a terrible beating for the balance of the round and had him reeling all over the ring, clinching and stalling whenver possible. Sam and Barry fought numerous times but Barry never did defeat him.

In the third round, Sam dropped Barry with anothe rhard right, and it became clear that Barry had shot his bolt in the first round. The fight continued for the full six rounds, but Sam dominated the balance of the fight, and Tad reported that, "Sam was the better boxer, and harder hitter, and proved to be the better man."

As I said, the one loss to McVey in Australia was said to be the result of the fact that the referee, who refused to allow infighting and was the sole judge of the fight, awarded it to McVey. Those at ringside, including Tommy Burns, called it a terrible job of officiating and ridiculed the decision. The referee, Snowy Baker, was roasted by the Australian press for the decision.

 

Still need to get that one, Clay. Too much work, lately.

 

Further to the December 26, 1911 fight between Langford and McVey that is in the record books as a victory for McVey. Here's what Will Lawless, respected boxing writer of the Australian publication 'The Referee' later wrote about Snowy Baker awarding that bout to McVey:

"The white-haired referee made a mistake, as I said at the time, and have stated on many occasions since, which I could not understand until he explained later that a good deal of Langford's work at close quarters - 'his uppercuts and right chops,' etc. - was not allowed because it occured in "clinches." Never was such a untenable defense of a decision heard before. Just the same amount of Langford's scoring in this most recent bout and perhaps a little more, was done in so called "clinches," and Arthur Scott very properly alllowed for it in the reckoning because it was legal and in conformity with the rules of the game. The "clinches" were no clinches at all. McVey was the only man holding on both occasions; but it takes two to provide a clinch, each must be embracing the other. That Snowy Baker should have fallen into such an error was certainly a surprise to me."

Immediately after the Dec. 26 fight, The Sydney Referee, a publication considered to be the leading authority on boxing in Australia, wrote: "The pity of it was that so great and generously waged a contest should have been marred by such a glaringly wrong decision as the verdict in Sam McVey's favor. I cannot recall more than a few cases where a ring ruling had so little justification.

Former heavyweight champion Tommy Burns, in attendance for the fight, was even blunter in his assessment of the decision:

"The decision was awful. Believe me, and I mean it too, it was absolutely the worst decision that it's been my lot to witness.

Why, Langford won all the way. He was streets in front, and gee he should have certainly got it. I had a good opinion of Snowy Baker's refereeing once, but it's all gone. He won't referee a fight that I have got anything to do with."