It depends if you want ability for his era or ability for all time. Very high for his era, not that high for all time. High for historic significance
He's #3 for me. #1 on the most well researched and thoroughly debated list I'm aware of - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/the-top-100-pound-for-pound-all-time-greats.459918/
SRR Armstrong Greb Fitzsimmons Langford Charles Ali SR Leonard B Leonard Willie Pep This content is protected
#1 Harry Greb #2 Sugar Ray Robinson #3 Sam Langford #4 Ezzard Charles #5 Henry Armstrong Every spot in this list is interchngeable.
1. Greb 2. Langford 3. SRR 4, Charles 5. Armstrong 6. Fitzsimmons 7. Joe Louis 8. Benny Leonard 9. Roy Jones, Jr. 10. SRL
Tough for me to decide. While Sam looks good on the little bit of film for his time he doesn't look that good compared to men from the 40's to the 90's
He's only as good as the era he existed in , which was poor. Combine with how little video footage exists and there's really no justification to have him anywhere near top 30.
For the time and what he did at multiple weight classes Langford is astronomically high and I imagine if you bring him back at a number of weight classes he would learn to be competitive even today. I have him high for his historical value, but he does indeed look like a fighter of his times on film and the game certainly evolved a lot during the 20th century heyday. I have him around 10 but you can argue higher if you value history/recordbook boxing or lower if you value film/h2h. Having him outside of the top 25 is difficult to justify.