Sam Langford vs. Jack Dempsey

Dempsey would have his hands full with a prime Sam Langford.

Langford had KO power & good boxing skills.

 

Jack Dempsy of course, bare knuckle at his middleweigh championship...before TB let Fitzsimmons win.......well who do you think Jack Dempsy named himself after....don't remember Jack's real name, but it was not Dempsy....and against either it would be a good hard fight.

 

William Harrison Dempsey

 

"Others have written about my 'killer instinct', my 'fighting heart'; some even say I was the greatest fighter of my century. They were impressed by my courage in the ring. I was small as heavyweights go and usually fought giants, so they called me 'Jack the Giant Killer.' They said I feared no man.
"The hell I feared no man! There was one man – he was even smaller than me – I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford."

:think

 

Okay, a straight answer to the question IMO.

At HW Dempsey has a better chance, though a Langford triumph is not at all improbable.

At MW it will be all Sam Langford. Dempsey was 6'1'' and about 188 pounds - lean and rangy. He would lose too much strength going down to MW.

 

Make no mistake Langford would have a verry real chance of beating any heavyweight in history. As a puncher he was right up there with the likes of Dempsey, Louis and Tyson. An unholy blend of brute force and method.

Having made these observations I would tend towards Dempsey to beat his role model having endured some shakey moments.

 

I would pick Dempsey, but it is worth nothing that the Mauler said he would have fought Wills, and the ONLY guy that he was afraid of was Sam Langford.

 

yeah, i remember reading that what dempsey said on langford. personally, i think dempsey might have been a bit of a media product.
his resume for a legend is way too thin. beating an out of shape willard, a dying billy miske, a way too small carpentier. then there was firpo who was big and tough but talentless. his best Challenger was an old Tommy Gibbons......and that was a flat Performance. the best fighter he fought was tunney…...and tunney schooled him twice. okay, dempsey was faded then, but i think he probably would have lost to tunney had he been in his prime.

then there were all These great black fighters…….and he fought None of them!! i remember reading how he met a black light Heavyweight in new York once and got his ass handed to him so he moved back out west and went barn storming through former White hopes.
langfords resume is so much superior to that of dempsey, they shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breath.
my biggest concearn would have been that langford was so much Shorter...…..but then again, he ko´d much bigger men.
and stylwise dempseys agression should have suited the Boston tar Baby. talentwise, both were probably much Closer than on paper…...but i have to go with langford.

 

At middleweight? Did he mean The Nonpareil?

As great as he was Nonpareil was probably more around a Lightweight/Welterweight naturally, coupling Langford's size advantage with his brilliance I wouldn't give him much of a chance, I think Langford was similar in ability to Fitz and look at what he did to Dempsey, and that was probably before Fitz's prime.

 

Whereas I am sympathetic to your position, mostly agreeing, it is a bit overstated in that

A) Dempsey beat white fighters who beat some of those black fighters. And...

B) We don't really know how great those black fighters were either. Even Jack Johnson had some embarrassing losses. It was an era in which everyone won some and lost some.

All of that being said, yes, you have a very good point.

 

i understand what you mean. it´s kinda a "glass half empty/glass half full" type of Scenario. the black fighters mostly fought among themselves…..but how legit were These Matches?? in those Rough and tumble days fights were far easier to fix. and if you fight the same guy every couple of weeks how many of These Matches become mere Sparring exhebitions??
thats the Problem with dealing with lots of paper evidence and very Little footage.

there is one Thing however, that makes me lean towards the black fighters: logic. dempsey wasnt an active Champion. that was due to two factors: lack of bankable but beatable (non black) challengers and fame. why didnt he fight a black fighter?? kerns claimed there was no Money in it...……..but come on. that was a fat lie. it had only been a few years since the White hope era……..and racial hatred would have certainly meant big bucks at the box Office. kerns didnt go for it. and that indicates to me that he knew something. that he probably thought a guy like willis or langford could end his gravy Train real fast. thats tips the scale
for me.

 

Prime Langford probably wins.

 

Yes he was 19 years old at the time.
"The greatest fighter I have seen, greater than Jeffries for power is Jack Dempsey" Sam Langford