Langford vs Johnson Who really Won ?

From what I know, Langford - thirty pounds lighter - clearly lost but also gave a good account of himself so that Johnson wanted no part of him again, especially as Langford became bigger and better.

 

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/cbzforum/showthread.php?17712

 

No argument about that comprehensive report.

 

Langford was not only lighter ( 156 pounds ) he was just 20 years old!

If we examine the ages, weights, and experience level of fighting opponents the of 180 pounds when they meet, its all in Johnson's favor.

 

This of course is not true.
Langford had over 50 fights under his belt when they met , considerbaly more than Johnson.

Langford's birthday is a source of speculation, his date of birth is given as the 4th of March 1883 which would make him 23 when he met Johnson on the 26th of April 1906. Langford was 156lbs ,Johnson 185lbs both around 20 lbs below their optimum weights.

It's interesting that Mendozy harps on the weight dispariy here but never mentions the weight disparity between Jeffries and several of his opponents.

For example Sharkey conceding 32lbs, Fitz conceding 47lbs,Corbett conceding 30lbs,Finnegan conceding 60lbs, Griffin conceding 40lbs,Choynski conceding 52lbs.
ALL GIVING AWAY MORE WEIGHT THAN LANGFORD DID AGAINST JOHNSON .

But what can you expect from a slavish fan boy.?

NB. Mike Tyson was world's heavyweight champion at 20 and when he finally retired, he had 58 fights on his record, just 7 more than Langford had when he faced Johnson.

A poster said Johnson wanted no part of Langford when he became bigger and better.

Didn't Johnson also become bigger and better?:think

 

seems Johnson avoided more of the tough fighters than Dempsey and he also had that racial divide, was it money as opposed to risk or did he just feel above everyone.

 

Like Dempsey, Johnson campaigned to be the clear outstanding contender. Like Dempsey Johnson cherry his defences once he had a secure legacy. Unlike Dempsey he held victories over everyone who became a contender to him.

This fight saw Langford clearly lose. Watching Langford v Flynn and they allude to Sam knocking Johnson down though I'm not sure how accurate that is.

 

I've always been very curious about this fight -- please just bare with me.

But I don't think Johnson gets enough credit for this win. I know there was about a 30 pound discrepancy but he also clearly beats arguably the greatest boxer ever. Langford had over 50 fights to his name (more than Johnson) and the likes of McVea and Jeannette were having big fights early in the career just the same so Langford wasn't the only one.

Langford has a long string of great names on his resume -- but he still wasn't able to beat the best heavyweight of that era.

 

You seem to discount the weight difference, but it stands above everything else.

Langford was smaller than Johnson/McVey/Wills/Jeanette.

 

I know the weight difference was huge. But him and Greb were fighting bigger men all the time.

Idk, I just feel the guys fighting someone bigger than them literally have nothing to lose. I know defeating someone 30+ pounds heavier than you is miraculous. But if a loss to a bigger man is automatically forgotten and doesn't tarnish their resume, whatsoever -- then why do we blame the Dempsey's and Johnson's for ducking them?

 

We blame them because the title shots had been earnt.

 

Very true.