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

Let's be accurate here, Langford was 23 NOT 20, he did give up 30lbs and he would give up 30lbs in any rematch as Johnson also gained 25lbs of solid weight over the next 4years

Langford was recorded at 166 as late as 1910 (only 10lbs heavier than the Johnson weight), so he was doing allot of his prime run only a little heavier than the weight Johnson beat him at, yet most disparage Johnson's win

Langford was 170lbs as late as 1911, he did go upto 180lbs+, whether this was his best weight is another matter.

The fact Johnson didn't want to fight Langford doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten him, Joe Calazghe didn't want to fight Jeff Lacy for instance.

 

"Let's be accurate here, Langford was 23 NOT 20, he did give up 30lbs and he would give up 30lbs in any rematch as Johnson also gained 25lbs of solid weight over the next 4years

Langford was recorded at 166 as late as 1910 (only 10lbs heavier than the Johnson weight), so he was doing allot of his prime run only a little heavier than the weight Johnson beat him at, yet most disparage Johnson's win

Langford was 170lbs as late as 1911, he did go upto 180lbs+, whether this was his best weight is another matter.

The fact Johnson didn't want to fight Langford doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten him, Joe Calazghe didn't want to fight Jeff Lacy for instance."

I have Langford's date of birth as 1886 and provide all the reasons for that in my book about him. That would make him 20 at the time they fought. But, here's a couple of reasons why I believe that year is accurate:

1. The following statement from Sam: "I was born March 4, 1886 in Nova Scotia on a farm near Weymouth and I guess I ought to know because I was there when it happened wasn't I?" This appeared in a series of articles in 1923 or 1924.

2. He had a brother named Walter born in 1883, another brother named Amos born 1888, Charles born in 1879 and sisters Annie (born 1874) and Sophia (born 1877).

Over the years his birth date was given out as 1880, 1883 and 1886 numerous times but after piecing all of the various articles together, considering what Sam himself said and looking at birthdates of his siblings, etc., etc. I became convinced that 1886 was the correct year. Now, I wouldn't stake my life on it but I do believe it's the most likely year of his birth.

I agree that Sam would have still given up 30 pounds later but I like his chances much better as a physically mature light-heavyweight.

I always figured Sam's best fightiing weight was in the range of 175-180.

And, I agree completely with your last statement, that the fact Johnson didn't want to fight him again doesn't mean he wouldn't have beaten him.

 

Thank You for explaining your point, I wasn't aware you'd wrote a book on the subject. You may well have the correct birthdate, but ofcourse Sam wouldn't be the first to lie about his age or he possibly could be mistaken about the date, with illiteracy and record keeping being quite different in this time

 

I don't get all this conjecture on Langford vs. Johnson.. The facts are these... Johnson pitched a complete shut-out vs. Sam when they did fight. It wasn't like it was even close by any stretch of the imagination. Sam got beaten up and busted up with with by Johnson. This is something Sam even admits saying Johnson is the only man to dominate him. So... Sam gains more weight.. AND... what does that have to do with a thing? Johnson ALSO gained the same amount of weight and was an even better physical and dominating specimen he was when he beat Sam. I see no reason to believe Sam beats Johnson at all... Even for the Williard fight... I think Johnson still wins. If my memory serves me correctly.. Didn't Sam have more fights whne he met Johnson?

 

The only reason I get sucked into this Langford vs. Johnson debate at all is that I think the 185 pound Johnson gets too much credit for dominating a middleweight. I've already gone on record as saying I believe there is a very good chance that Johnson would defeat Langford by decision had they fought again a second time after Sam had physically matured into a light-heavyweight but that's certainly not a given. It just irks me that so many seem to point to that first fight as definitive proof that a second fight would have been no different when I feel as though there are still so many misconceptions as to the circumstances surrounding their only fight.

 

Thank you:good

It is kinda silly, isn't it?

Sam was a completely different animal after he rose in weight. Some on this site seem to think that Johnson changed just as dramatically as Langford when he gained pounds. The record does not support this. A bigger, heavier and perhaps slightly better version of himself, but nowhere near the dramatic change that occurred in Langford.

To suggest that the rematch would have been a carbon copy of their first bout is laughable and incredibly lacking in insight.

 

I don't see why a thorough ass kicking somehow disqualifies someone in a rematch. Louis got his behind kicked by Schmeling but won the rematch. Greb dominated Tunney but lost some of the rematches. McClarnin was soundly outfoxed by Sammy Mandell but won the other fights. Ezzard Charles was soundly beaten by Bivins and Marshall the first go round, but won the series. **** happens.

 

I don't think anybody is claiming it would've been a "carbon copy" of their first fight, at least not me. What I am saying, is there is nothing to suggest by Sam's weight gain and further experience he would be anything more than a live underdog considering their first fight. I'm not even sure how that is even debatable.

 

S.B. come on buddy you're better than this... Newspapers do the exact same thing as they do now.... Try and build up interest in big fights and build up fighters to be the next world beater. How many fighters do I have to name that were glamorized by the press during a decently or good run to be the next this or that. It's a common theme in every sport we have. People get built up as they make a decent run. Nothing new. The fact that you're really on this as proof he would do better.. is really not sound logic by any stretch of the imagination. Who would u say was more hated... Johnson for Langford by the press and the white community as a whole... hence the other problem.. bias in writers. What it comes down to is this and there is really no way around this fact... Sam should be considered nothing more than a live underdog or game quality foe for Johnson. Nothing more. You don't even believe he would be the favorite so I'm not sure what we are arguing here... I don't think he would be the favorite either.. are we arguing how big we think that gap is? He got crushed.. and I mean crushed by Johnson.. that carries 50x the weight as writers talkign about Sam making a good run...

 

History clearly shows us that in fact the first fight's result carried NO weight whatsoever. Again, go back and read what was said and show me where a reputable boxing person cites the first fight as proof positive that a rematch would play out the same way. You can't. Because they knew that this would be a completely different kettle of fish. You need to show me where it carried any "weight" at the time, because the historical record doesn't show that it did.

I'm not talking about writers in the press hyping a fight here. I'm talking about unbiased boxing people who had no monetary interest in hyping this proposed match. I'm talking trainers, fellow boxers, sporting men, etc. The first fight was by and large considered a complete non-issue. That is not my opinion, that is fact supported by historical evidence.

Hope I'm not sounding stodgy. Just a friendly debate:smoke

 

Regardless of WHO said Langford had a shot or was looking better than their first fight...It's how much weight you're putting into this that is my issue. So, lets get down to the nuts and bolts here... which do you think carries more weight... The actual fight between Johnson and Sam or trainers and boxing people thinking Sam was looking good and better than their first fight? Oo and no worries man, it's always a good convo with you.