Who knows! I think Jackson who was a very fast out fighter would win in a 15 round match but you never know as Langford was tough with skills and better power. Jackson's legacy is mostly forgotten but those who saw him felt he was special. George Siler, famous referee for both Jackson and Jack Johnson felt Jackson was the better by long odds. Siler was the third man in the ring for over 200 matches from 1891-1907, most of them with name fighters.
There is some on Langfrod that can be viewed on you tube. Langford vs Lang, Flynn, and Jeannette are easy to view. Langford had good in and out fighting skills, but he was very short, and didn't have much defense from a distance. But once he got in range, his opponents paid the price or ran. Tough, strong for his size, and with the stamina to fight 20+ hard rounds, Langford was a special type of fighter. Get to know him! This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
You can read about him. He was a well liked person. You get the feeling boxing had seen no one like him before. A big man for his time, very fast and smooth with good power. I picture him as a bigger version of Ezzard Charles.
??? What does that have to do with Peter Jackson? You could argue at 168 pounds Calzaghe is among the best ever. My point, by reading the news clips you can get a good feel of his style as a fighter.
I will judge a Fighter if there is no way to view him in anyway, why, because it's fun to do, Jackson was more of a legit HW than the short Langford, from what I've read and what others said about him, he was an excellent and very skilled boxer, like Corbett, well ahead of his time, I say from everything I can gather about both, I would take Jackson to win a UD.
Langford was a freak of nature....amazing he could KO huge guys. Freakishly long arms and built like a tank. One of the few real oldies that I think would do very well in 2017. But at what weight? Dude fought at just about every weight but flyweight!