Langford or Pep, who has the better resume?

In post #76, you asked JAB5239 to name Sam's greatest career win, and I merely attempted to interject a list of several candidates.

Can't be champion without ever getting a shot. Burns did try to arrange a defense against him before Rushcutter's Bay, but it fell through and Lil' Artha' got his big chance first. Langford's overall official record against McVey is

This content is protected

[all four of these in Australia during 1912, McVey's only defeats between the Paris marathon with Jeannette in July 1909, and a 12 round loss to Wills in September 1915]

This content is protected

[the first over 20 rounds in December 1911, the second over 12 in June 1915]

This content is protected

. All four draws were over the 20 round limit. McVey squared off with Langford for the first time only after that 49 round war in Paris. Despite that experience of going nearly two and a half times as long as his longest limit against Langford, he was never able to wear Langford down over the longer haul, decisioning him only once in five tries over 20 rounds.

I believe that Jack (who held a significant youth advantage over Harry) would've knocked him out, but Willard is the champion who should have been defending against Wills. Not Harry's fault he never got a shot, and I'll not denigrate a top contender for never being world champion without being given a chance to win it.

Now the Fireman did get two title shots, and lost both badly. He was also degraded and declining when Dempsey got to him. But he was a competent contender when he had his act together and was focused, as he was for Langford III.

Back in March, a number of us posters made the case for the Fireman's 1912 shot at Johnson in the following thread:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9152024#post9152024

Again, never granted an opportunity to challenge for it. Nor do I think he could have won it from Johnson, but what if he could have gotten to Burns or Willard?

I think Gunner has a strong case as the best "White Hope" to not get a shot at Johnson. The fact is that he did defeat future HW World Champion Willard over 20 rounds before Langford knocked Gunner out, then decisioned soon to be crowned LHW ATG titlist Levinski over the same distance. Also over 20 rounds, Smith was the last man to hold a win over Moran prior to Frank's title shots at Johnson and Willard.

Gunboat never got a title shot at former conquest Levinski either, and easily could have made 175 for the occasion. He could beat champions like Levinski and Willard, but damned if they'd ever give him a chance to it with their titles on the line.

:sad2Wow. Just wow. What would somebody have to consist of to qualify as one of note in your esteem?

In Brooklyn, New York, on April 14, 1899, 127 pound McFadden knocked out a rising 133 pound contender with a

This content is protected

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

-

This content is protected

record named Joe Gans in 23 rounds. It was the first knockout defeat of the Old Master's career.

I guess Sammy Angott, Esteban DeJesus, Jake LaMotta and Joe Frazier never beat anyone of note during their careers either.

Of course, let's be realistic instead of over exaggerating. Since it's been established that McFadden beat no-one of note during his career, I defer to this obviously infallible command of the facts.

 

you have done some good homework hear :good.. i have footage of Jeanette, Langford, Wills, McVey, Willard as well as read up on them regular in the past. IMO they can be over rated or under rated and my own personal choice is to rate Langford and Willard as superior than the other three who i feel get over rated. i also rate Jack Johnson highly and rate Jack Dempsey as the greatest Heavyweight in history yet some laugh at that comment. This Topic was set up by JAB in an attempt to ridicule me and i feel he has again failed miserably. He underestimated peoples knowledge like yourself as well as several others and expected everyone to burst out laughing at myself who he knew would vote Willie Pep had the greater record.. i enjoy debating boxing and ignore the posters who post one-line quotes to a topic and appreciate guy's like your self who take the time to explain their case and put forward the facts they have researched to back up their case... JAB loves to debate boxing yet i am the only person he has ever debated it with and we have went on for days if not weeks on certain topics, but once he starts to lose the argument he turns to ridicule and schoolboy antics like trying to get a gang (set up a pole) onto me and if that does not work he then looks to try to get me banished so as to relieve the frustration suffered from not being able to compete... yet back to yourself and the points you make here for those fighters, of which i agree with you and you have enlightened me on McFadden and i appreciate your involvement and your research yet Langfords record still does not match up to Willie Pep's record which includes fighters of the caliber of Sandy Sadler, Paddy DeMarco, Chalky Wright, Sal Bartolo, Manuel Ortiz & Sammy Agnott as well as going 134-1-1 and 61-0 earlier in his career along with over 5yrs as world champion. in all honesty i don't think it's even close.

 

I'm not among those who laughs at your top rating of Dempsey, having made that case for him myself in the past.

It's not my usual temperament to get into exchanges like that. I prefer to offer feedback for posters and lurkers to better decide questions like who has a better resume for themselves. Where you and JAB stand seems pretty clear. There are plenty of HOF class historians here. I'm trying to think of those who are reading these threads to learn something new. Pep has the advantage of having been known and watched live by many of the posters here live, so it's Langford who is more in need of advocates for this thread, even with a 3/4 super majority supporting him in this poll so far.

That's fine by me. I do urge that records be checked and facts verified as best as practical before posts are submitted. (I've made my share of embarrassing errors here, and will continue to. All that can be done is try to learn from them, and move on.)

McFadden may well enter the IBHOF within the next year or two, and has some extremely passionate support among a variety of respected historians who believe Elbows is long overdue. As wins go, his defeat of Gans ranks with Schmeling's of Louis among the very top knockout wins of any non-title fight. Angott, Dejesus, LaMotta and Frazier had to settle for decisions in their greatest wins.

I did wind up voting for Sam after some deliberation. As my previous post revealed, I was looking for conclusive wins, and Langford had a number of knockouts against larger and more resilient opponents. Sam was an inch and a half taller than Willie, yet would go after absolutely anybody, from Gans, Barbados Walcott, Blackburn (who he defeated over the championship distance on August 18, 1905 in what may have been his best win I did not previously list), to a behemoth like the towering Fulton when aging and going blind. (On June 19, 1917, Fred stopped Sam in seven, the first time anybody is credited with halting the 34 year old Langford in well over a decade, spanning 107 fights. Didn't stop Sam from taking on Fulton again, and this time a nearly blind Langford lasted the four round limit.) The man was not at all shy about taking on the challenge of those who had previously gotten the better of him.

From 1902 to 1918, my 1957 Ring Record Book shows Sam engaged in 177 total bouts. Nobody was able to put him down for the count of ten until Wills finally managed it in six rounds in Panama on April 14, 1918, when Langford was already 35. The total of nine career knockouts listed is kind of misleading. In 316 career matches currently listed for Sam, he may have only been counted out this one single time, according to what some more detailed research indicates.

On boxWRECK, Jeannette and Young Peter Jackson are presently credited as having administered Sam's first two stoppage defeats, in December 1905 and June 1906 respectively. Both times, Langford won a rematch within six months, and took an extended series over both. Again, nobody else was credited with doing this until Fulton.

As great as Willie was (and without the plane crash, he would have been greater still), he largely confined himself within one division, and wasn't crazy enough to go after bigger top of the food chain game. This was also true for Robinson, who really only took on LaMotta as a top full fledged middleweight opponent between 1940 to 1950. Even Greb had an absolute limit on who he actually took on in terms of size. (There are stories he did want to try Fulton, but the fact is that Fulton, Wills, Willard, Tate, Godfrey and other modern sized super heavyweights are not on his record. Harry had two inches of height on Sam, although not the heft in full maturity, never outgrowing 160. Sam was around 200 pounds for Jeannette X, a wide bodied tank.) Langford actually knocked out Godfrey 2X, Wills 2X, and 6' 6-1/2" 245 Bill Tate (when Sam was 34). Langford stated in print he was willing to take on any man in the world with the sole exception of Jim Jeffries, and he proved it over a span of more than two decades.

 

Honestly I don't think it's even debatable. Langford fought the likes of gans, elbows, walcott, holly, young peter jackson, tiger smith, flowers, levinsky and then went on to defeat meaningful heavyweights such as Jeanette (x8 ), Ross, Flynn (x2), Schreck, Ketchel, Lang, Mcvea(x4), D. Flynn, Smith, Wills (x2), Norfolk, Battling Jim Johnson (x2) all of whom were top ten at the time, most of whom where top 5.

What prime pep did was fantastic and he has a strong case for being the best defensive boxer of all time, both are top ten. But pep just doesn't have the depth of victories that langford has. I have it, atm, as follows.


Fitzsimmons
Robinson
Langford
Louis
Armstrong
Greb
Ali
Pep
Leonard
Duran

 

Hya Quarry: Well you got at least one guy in myself, who agree with you that the "prime" Jack Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight in history,man on man. Didn't meet the best contenders,as no fighter picks the time of their birth, but at his peak the Manassa Mauler was ,with his speed, tremendous
hitting power, combined with his chin in his shoulders defense, a force of nature, a force of nature for a heavyweight. So Q,you are not alone in your
choice...Let the nayayers start their engines, wer'e ready, alongst with Sam Langford who echoed our choice. Cheers...

 

do you have any proof of this statement that "you know Gans & Walcott rightfully rank higher All time than Sandy Sadler"... just one link would be sufficient

 

Langford has arguably the best resume in history. over 300 fights, all the guys who'd lace em up from 135 onwards.

Out of everyone he fought only 5 men would score an unavenged victory, each of these had lost to people Sam had already beaten (just as an aside).