My argument for Sam Langford being #1 lb for lb all-time

Well the point stands, he's not considered top5 in any weight class despite having lineal titles at Flyweight, Featherweight, 130lbs and 140lbs. So 4 lineal titles spanning 9 weight classes

Johnson may have been heavier and bigger, but he did start at 160lbs himself and did go onto achieve bigger and better things than Langford BY FAR, having a far more dominant run

Rating Johnson over Langford would be the same logic as rating Hagler the highest of the fab 4 or Monzon over Griffith/Napoles. Johnson achieved far more than Langford against heavyweights. Langford is being given a P4P boost because he was smaller, rightly so, but ultimately Johnson performed far better as a heavyweight and dominated Langford himself

I suppose that's why I consider P4P ratings ultimately flawed

 

I don't think that Langford was ever the best fighter in the world at lightweight or welterweight, but in both cases he did beat the man who was as a teenager!

He probably was the best middleweight in the world. Stanley Ketchell was the only person who could have posed a serious challenge to him at this weight, and his death both robbed Langford of his title shot and eliminated Ketchell from the question.

Since he beat Philadelphia Jack O'Brien easily, it is probably fair to say that he was the best Light heavyweight in the world.

You could probably identify a hand picked point in time where he was the best heavyweight in the world. Johnson went into the tank a lot more quickly than people think after the Jeffries fight.

 

I agree and would include Fitz as well.

 

I agree with most of what you have said here... The only thing I would say is.. Even if Johnson went into the tank sooner than people think after the Jeffries figth... Johnson would still probably beat Sam had they fought in 1910 - 1915.

 

"Johnson may have been heavier and bigger, but he did start at 160lbs himself and did go onto achieve bigger and better things than Langford BY FAR, having a far more dominant run."

I haven't checked into this, but I'm wondering who Johnson actually beat of any significance before he was a heavyweight himself.

While I think he was a great heavyweight I've never really been all that impressed by who he defeated to win the title and then during his reign:

Tommy Burns - really a light-heavy and undersized in comparison to Johnson.

Phil. Jack O'Brien - light heavyweight

Tony Ross

Al Kaufman

Stanley Ketchel - middleweight

James Jeffries - 35-year-old who had been retired for 5-6 years and had to lose a whole bunch of weight for his return to the ring.

Fireman Jim Flynn

Battling Jim Johnson

Frank Moran

Jack Murray

There's not a single win among the above that I'm all that impressed with. Not to say that he couldn't have beaten better during that time but one might make a case that Langford could have done just as well against that lineup given the opportunity. Some would argue that he didn't do as well against Ketchel but I believe Sam's contention that he held back in that bout with the idea of securing a longer more lucrative fight against Ketchel later that year.

Of course, there's no way to prove any of this one way or the other.

 

^^^^ It's Johnson Pre-Title run that is far more impressive than his title run. He pretty much beat every contender there was, and imo, would've won the title earlier had Jeffires not drawn the color line. Johnson didn't lose in over a decade. Not many can say that.

 

Wouldn't call myself knowledgable about Langford. I have a scrapbook with reports or references to reports for some of his fights, but I didn't study him very deep, didn't go through his record looking up and reading the reports or pre-fight post-fight opinions. It's taking very much time and I've been concentrating more on Gans and McFarland last several years, Langford is only one of the boxers I put together a scrap-book of reports on, from time to time, at random.

 

Greb
Robinson
Armstrong
LANGFORD
Charles
Duran
Fitzsimmons

That's how I have it. But I honestly think any one of those guys has a reasonable chance at being considered the greatest fighter of a time

 

Johnson proved he was to good for Langford in the first fight. If Sam was 20 pounds heavier it may have actually had hi at a disadvantage, losing a lot of speed, and Johnson was so physically strong that he'd still be at a significant disadvantage in that sense.

Why the **** should how much someone weighs effect their performance when if Langford ballooned up to 200 pounds he'd be dreadfully slow and probably a worse fighter than he was at 170/180. He could have fought at 200 but didn't and that's his fault. Size is a bull**** argument except in occasional circumstance. Langford picked to fight at his best weight, not because he thouhgt 'when people look back in 100 years, I'll get credit for fighting at the best possible weight for me'.

Also Gans had a fight the day before he fought Langford, not too mention was outweighed. Therefore in Langford logic this loss doesn't do anything for Gans resume or for Langford's.

How is it fair for Langford to get so much credit for beating someone when he loses to them 17 times afterwards, and them to get no recognition at all? Langfords loses have counted for nothing whilst considering his p4p rating which is utter bull****. You hold loses against the likes of Sanders and Purity for Wlad so highly even though he was well before his prime? But for Langford it doesn't matter.

I dont have a problem with rating Langford highly but clearly everyone on this forum uses huge bias in there p4p rankings as they treat many fighters differently (Wlad being a good example). Where's Haye's credit for beating someone 99 pounds and 11 inches taller than him??

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You wont say this for the likes of Louis career or Marciano's in the fact that they fought CWs for the majority of the career, but if it helps out Langford, let's jump on the bandwagon and go along with it :good

 

I think this is more romanticism and compensatory justice for the boxer who faced discrimination rather than a harsh analysis of their records during the period

Johnson stated his career peak was the Jeffries peak, you surely know this, yet pick the Langford who lost a shutout to an inferior Johnson to be number heavyweight at this stage? Langford gained 30lbs of muscle, as did Johnson

Let's analyse Langford's record 1910 onwards and put the spot light on his lesser performances

1908-1909-very dominant run aside from a draw with Sandy Ferguson, who he also beat
1910 - Loses to Flynn (is this legit, I know Langford was robbed a few times and it is controversial). KO's Flynn in the rematch.
1911 - Loses and draws to McVey - losing coloured championship during this period
1912 - August-December beats McVey 3 times, establishing himself as clearly the better man during this period
1913 - Generally the best of the coloured circuit but draws with McVey again,
loses to Gunboat Smith (perhaps a robbery)
1914 - draws with Wills, draws with Jim Johnson, draws with Jeanette, seemingly past his best
1915 - loses to Wills/McVey/Jeanette, heavier and past prime
1916 - bounces back with wins over Wills and mcVey, but loses twice to Wills again

Now it is hard to compare him against Johnson in this period because of the different opponents, Langford's opposition is widely considered the better. Johnson is ofcourse more dominant during the period, only suffering 1 draw, against Jim Johnson while suffering a broken arm.

What can we take from all this?

1. Johnson was more dominant against Mcvea, Jeanette and Ferguson. He was generally more dominant as coloured champion. It should be noted Johnson and other fighters involved in these fights stated there more fights that boxrec has no record of, so their respective records maybe much deeper

2. Langford himself, McVea and Jeanette all probably improved after Johnson became champion. Johnson himself did improve into 1910, got bigger and stronger, he possibly was nearer his peak than all 3 when he was coloured champion however

3. Langford probably fought a worse version of Ferguson, who he beat but also drew against. Ferguson is clearly a quality opponent given he was widely considered to be robbed against Marvin Hart and beat Jeanette
By 1914, Wills was overtaking Langford

4. If Flynn did deserve the win over Langford in 1910, Johnson's dominant performance against him in 1912 is noteworthy opponent even if he isn't elite.

5. In 1911 when Langford potentially has a window of opportunity to take over, where Johnson is possibly fading, Langford looks past his best losing to McVea

6. 1911-1913 are possibly the window of opportunity where Langford could beat Johnson.

7. By 1914 onwards both are significantly past their primes and their performances clearly deteriate there on

I just don't think Langford beats Johnson at any stage. Partly due to the dominance of the first fight, partly due to the respective level of dominance against the opposition they faced and also because Langford faded near the same time Johnson started to fade

So he was a prodigious teenager, I agree, he obviously isn't a natural welterweight, he's a natural light heavyweight, but because his first honours as a fighter were at welterweight he gets extra brownie points, much like Pacquaio get's for draining himself down to flyweight as a teenager

I agree he probably was the best light heavyweight of his time, but was he the best light heavyweight or middleweight of all time? Head to head aswell as achievement? Surely a fighter who is considered number 1 of all time should be considered the best in their weight class without doubt? I don't think he is, I think many men from these weight classes beat him great fighter and pioneer of the sport that he is.

As mentioned Johnson's pre-title run accounts for much of his, but his title run is underrated today, Jeffries may have been past his prime, but he was considered the greatest ever in his own time and many fighters build their legacy on beating past prime greats

As a middleweight Johnson wasn't quite the prodigy Langford was as a welterweight, the point is they both started at lower weights and grew into bigger men, Langford a solid 170lb-200lb heavyweight and Johnson a 180-210lb heavyweight. Langford gets points from many because 'he started at welterweight', 'he was really a middleweight/light heavy', 'he was short', when in reality he did grow into a very solid 180lbs, the same weight Dempsey, Marciano and Patterson fought at, 2 of which are also ex-middleweights, yet no one rates them as top P4P boxers

 

"Johnson proved he was to good for Langford in the first fight. If Sam was 20 pounds heavier it may have actually had hi at a disadvantage, losing a lot of speed, and Johnson was so physically strong that he'd still be at a significant disadvantage in that sense.

Why the **** should how much someone weighs effect their performance when if Langford ballooned up to 200 pounds he'd be dreadfully slow and probably a worse fighter than he was at 170/180. He could have fought at 200 but didn't and that's his fault. Size is a bull**** argument except in occasional circumstance. Langford picked to fight at his best weight, not because he thouhgt 'when people look back in 100 years, I'll get credit for fighting at the best possible weight for me'."

These are the kind of statements that normally prevent me from even bothering with forums. Langford wasn't 170/180 when he fought Johnson. He was a 20-year-old middleweight fighting a 26-year-old who outweighed him by 30-40 poounds. Maybe Johnson would have defeated him again if they'd fought a second time after Langford had matured into a legitimate light-heavyweight but the fact is Johnson didnt' want to fight him again then and admitted as much to Australian promoter Hugh McIntosh.

I don't think Langford gave much thought to his legacy at the time.