Sam Langford has better wins at HW than Jack Johnson & should be ranked higher

Johnson:

Fireman Jim Flynn
Stanley Ketchel
Tommy Burns
Al Kauffman
Joe Jeannette
Sam McVea
Ed Martin
Sandy Ferguson
Whoever Janitor Says I'm Missing


Langford:

Sam McVey (more often and throughout Sam's prime, past his own prime)
Jeff Clark
Harry Wills (quite a few times, likely a better fighter than anyone Johnson met)
Jim Johnson
Joe Jeanette
Gunboat Smith
Jim Barry
Jim Flynn
Iron Hague
Sandy Ferguson
Whoever Janitor Says I'm Missing



Of course, Johnson beat Langford but Langford was not a HW at that time, he was a MW. I think the fact carries far to much weight. If a HW Louis had beaten a MW Charles, would you care?

The names above are arguable I think, but it stands out that Langford dominated series with Jeanette and McVey slap bang in their primes as opposed to before and that he even took on such excellent fighters past his own prime. Those precious wins over Wills also stand out - Wills is a cut above anyone Johnson fought IMO.

Johnson arguably has an advantage in terms of longevity given that he was a career HW whilst Langford was locking horns with guys like Ketchel, Gans and Walcott on the way up, but probably not in any meaningful way.

If it can be successfully argued that Langford beat better men at HW than Johnson, and more often, why would Johnson be ranked above Langford?

 

If you want to weight the title heavily you wouldn't be alone, and I don't think it's unreasonable. For me, the fact that Langford beat better fighters is more important that the fact that Johnson was able to shame/bully/convince his champion, Burns into doing the right thing and taking on his #1 contender, whilst Langford was unable to do the same with his champion, who happened to be Johnson.

Although the most accomplished of their common opponents, Joe Jeanette, was consistent in rating Langford the better man.

He's the best that they BOTH beat, but not the best that Langford beat, which tells it's own story!

 

That's true.

Johnson, both as champion and challenger has a horrific record of actually meeting the #1 or #2 contender. In fact, he arguably didn't do except with Hart who beat him and Burns who was champ. Plus, you could argue the weird politics of the day likely meant Jeffries was legitimately #1 in a weird kinda way.

Langford was the man with the deepest claim during Johnson's reign.

In other words, your main reason for ranking Johnson above Langford - the title - is something that the man who does better in the rankings refused to match against the man you are ranking him over in this instance, Langford.

Sounds a little like the fix is in :yep

But Johnson's - and later Dempsey's - flat our refusal to meet the #1 contender are good illustrations of why ranking men according to title is dangerous. You've said yourself that you didn't know until recently about the colour line.

For a spell, Jackson was better than champion Sullivan.
Langford was better than champion Johnson
Wills was better than champion Dempsey (arguably).

But they couldn't fight for the title because they were black.

In this light, what is being "the man" really worth?

 

Who would you name?

Inarguably.

 

Would you guys agree that Johnson's prime is really short? And basically covers his title years? During which he was often out of shape? Complicated fighter to appraise.