Sam Langford question

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by robert ungurean, Jul 28, 2018.



  1. robert ungurean

    robert ungurean Богдан Full Member

    10,529
    4,843
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2007
    This question is for the Sam Langford experts and I say that with respect not sarcasm.
    A lot of historians have him no.# 1 on there P4P list. I have only seen most of the film available out there and he doesn't look very polished. I know he's a big hitter though.
    Is this ranking based on his resume? Or is it more.
    Fill me in please.
     
  2. mcvey

    mcvey Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    85,439
    10,551
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 2, 2006
    I'm not an expert on Langford or any other fighter, but Sam was an ATG puncher and if he felt he could take his opponents power he seemed to have been content to do so to get his own shots in.I believe this is shown in his fight with Flynn where he basically walked in drawing the lead, ready to counter with big shots.
     
  3. BitPlayerVesti

    BitPlayerVesti The Ad Wolgast of Googling Stuff Full Member

    4,713
    4,199
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 28, 2017
    He beat people from Joe Gans to Harry Wills, hard to not rate him super high off resume.

    The poor quality of the footage (atleast that I've seen), and the general lack of it, means I don't really judge off it at all. Bad footage can make fighters looks a lot worse, and even modern fighters can be a lot better than they look (or vice versa)
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  4. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    60,677
    6,876
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    I understand that the argument hangs almost exclusively on his resume.
     
  5. robert ungurean

    robert ungurean Богдан Full Member

    10,529
    4,843
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2007
    Thanks. All answers are a big help for me.
     
  6. mcvey

    mcvey Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    85,439
    10,551
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 2, 2006
    Yes I went off piste ,sorry!
     
  7. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    60,677
    6,876
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 15, 2006
    It is too early to be piste!
     
    mcvey likes this.
  8. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker Full Member

    20,567
    1,977
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 15, 2008
    What's astonishing about Langford is that he likely could have stayed at 160 or 168 most of his career .. he moved up by choice because no one would fight him .. even as a short heavyweight with a decent reach he managed to hunt / walk down many of the men he fought .. his power seems to be unquestioned .. to me from the Jeannette film ( another truly great fighter ) he seemed like a Dwight Qwai/James Toney type with monster power.
     
  9. bcr

    bcr Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,300
    1,069
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 21, 2013
    Old footage has a lot of leaps in the frames, that's why it looks like they are wild and funny.

     
  10. Seamus

    Seamus Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    39,450
    6,740
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 11, 2005
    I think Langford looks pretty good on film. His punching technique looks sterling, unlike anything we see till Dempsey with incredible leverage and speed on his hook. He doesn't seem to pay much attention to defense in some of the footage but that seems more to be his utter disregard for his opponents' ability to hurt him. He certainly looks the boss in the available footage.
     
  11. Ra's Al-Ghul

    Ra's Al-Ghul The One and Only Full Member

    10,216
    660
    Sportsbook:
    1,193
    Oct 17, 2014
    Well I agree in this: I have a sparring session in not so bad quality saved, where he appears technical very clumpsy, especially with not real defence, while he reminds to an poor-man's Clottey. Also seems he pretty slow, even at Heavyweight (compared to real heavyweights), when he weighted partly as welterweight in. Therefore he has many defeats too, something like 53 of 250 bouts or even worse, so at least 25% of his wins, which is a high number. He lost most of his fights against his best opponents (Johnson, Wills), so I had to come to the conclusion he is overrated by a lot.
     
    Pat M likes this.
  12. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,828
    3,731
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    Older footage also has about 100 fewer punches thrown a round and about 2:40 of clinching over three minutes.

    If they saw Vitali back then, he'd be considered the greatest thing to ever walk the earth.

     
  13. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,828
    3,731
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    If sterling means throwing roundhouse uppercuts because basically nobody jabbed or countered back then, I agree.
     
  14. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,024
    1,824
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Seamus said it best. Langford in the Jeanette Film looked very offensively sound in the punching department. His left hook was thrown with great leverage, body torque and explosive power coming from the legs and hips.

    Defensively, he was never in trouble nor did his opponent seem capable of mounting a credible offensive attack against him so Langford did not show his true prowess in his defense/counterpunching abilities If he had them

    Langford displayed the best offense on film out of the old timers until Dempsey came along and showcased his combination punching.


    His resume speaks for itself, it’s incredible from welter-heavy
     
    Tonto62 and George Crowcroft like this.
  15. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,828
    3,731
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 25, 2014
    The historians who have him number one on their pound for pound lists were primarily people who read about his exploits and never saw him fight, or wrote about him for decades until finally seeing him on film, and then they blamed the film for him looking "less than polished."

    The pioneers of the sport were incredibly important and should be acknowledged and praised, but overall the guys at the turn of the 20th century weren't polished and look underwhelming today compared to many who came after.

    None of them should be rated #1 pound for pound anymore.

    For example, I don't care for guys like Mikey Garcia at all. I find him overhyped and kind of boring to watch. But the skill level of the opponents he's faced in his career so far is MILES ahead of the general skill level fighters like Langford fought over his long career.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
    Clean & Crisp, mrkoolkevin and Pat M like this.