Sam Langford vs joe Louis

Historical ranking of fighters didn't really get into its stride until the Sixties.How many lists are there ranking the heavies before then?
Fleischer ranking the heavies in 58 and 71, had Louis at no6.
Rose in 68 had him no4.
Loubet in75 had him no1.
Readers Poll of World Boxing74 had Louis at no1.
Old Timers Survey75 had him no 8.
Durant in76 no1.
Bill Brennan president of the WBA no 2.78.
Sports Illustrated79 no2.
Many writers of Louis' era thought him an ATG ie Red Smith,Jimmy Cannon.

 

Janitor it is true. " It's mostly true. If you looks at where historians place people while Louis was active or a decade after retirement, he's not a top 3 guy in a majority sense. There are a few exceptions. Nat Fletcher who saw boxing from the 1890s to the very early 1970's had Louis rated at #6 for his final list. - Mendoza

Below are some list I've archived ( I have about 70 of them ) that clearly show Louis was not thought of as a top 3-5 guy when he was active or after he retired for a decade. Check the dates, you'll see what I mean:


Dumb Dan Morgan (circa 1950)
Fight manager, trainer
Quoted in: The Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions, John D. McCallum (pp. 46-47)
1-Jim Jeffries
2-John L. Sullivan
3-Jack Johnson
4-Bob Fitzsimmons
5-Jim Corbett
6-Gene Tunney
7-Jack Dempsey

This content is protected

Jim Jennings (1956)
Sportswriter, NY Daily Mirror
[revealed in private correspondence with IBRO historian Tracy G. Callis]

1-Jack Johnson
2-Jim Jeffries
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jack Dempsey
5-Jim Corbett
6-Gene Tunney

This content is protected

8-Rocky Marciano


Nat Fleischer (1958)
Publisher, sportswriter, author
Quoted in: The 1986-1987 Ring Record Book and Boxing Encyclopedia, edited by Herbert G. Goldman (p. 1070)
1-Jack Johnson
2-Jim Jeffries
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jack Dempsey
5-Jim Corbett

This content is protected

7-Sam Langford
8-Gene Tunney
9-Max Schmeling
10-Rocky Marciano


George A. Barton (1962)
Sportswriter, The Minneapolis Tribune
Quoted in: The Ring (December 1962, p. 10)
1-Jack Johnson
2-Jim Jeffries
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jack Dempsey

This content is protected

6-Jim Corbett
7-Gene Tunney
8-John L. Sullivan
9-Rocky Marciano
10-Max Baer


Harry Grayson (circa mid-1960s?)
NEA Sports Editor-Columnist in Detroit
[revealed in private correspondence with IBRO historian Tracy G. Callis]

1-Jack Dempsey
2-Jack Johnson
3-Jim Jeffries
4-John L. Sullivan
5-Gene Tunney
6-Bob Fitzsimmons
7-Jim Corbett

This content is protected

As I said things changed when the people who saw champion's from 1900-1940 died out, with plenty of Louis films for the next generation to very and very films of those before him to view.



Reader Poll (1974)
World Boxing (1974 Annual, pp. 30-39)

This content is protected

2-Jack Dempsey (2168)
3-Rocky Marciano (2161)
4-Jack Johnson (2083)
5-Muhammad Ali (1857)
6-Joe Frazier (1509)
7-Gene Tunney (1431)
8-Jim Jeffries (1379)
9-Sonny Liston (626)
10-Ezzard Charles (543)
11-Max Baer (484)
12-Bob Fitzsimmons (461)
13-Jim Corbett (413)
14-John L. Sullivan (409)
15-Floyd Patterson (287)
16-Max Schmeling (279)
17-Sam Langford (205)
18-Jersey Joe Walcott (114)
19-Jess Willard (39)
20-Tommy Burns (36)

This content is protected

The Ring (March 1975, pp. 28-30)
1-Joe Louis
2-Jack Dempsey
3-Jim Jeffries
4-Jack Johnson
5-Rocky Marciano
6-Gene Tunney
7-Bob Fitzsimmons
8-Jim Corbett
9-Muhammad Ali
10-Joe Frazier

 

This is wrong, historical rankings of sport writers, historians or from the fighters themselves can be found well before the Sixtes. I must have 20+ of them and that's probably less than half of what's out there. Some of them date to the early 1900's.

 

I think most people agree that Langford's fighting style reminds them of James Toney. Who beat Toney
in the easiest manner? Roy Jones Jr, who used incredible speed in both offense and defence. Did Joe
Louis have incredible speed? No, very quick, close in punches for sure, but not in his footwork. So I think
Landford's boxing style is all wrong for Louis and wins a 15 round decision.

Does anyone else think Langford looks like Terrel Owens, the US Football player? (face only, not body
as Owens is much bigger).

 

Anyone writing off Langford's chances here is being shortsighted imo, Langford had the power to drop anyone.

 

I have seen most of those lists, but I don't think that they are particularly representative of what sports writers and boxing fans thought at the time.

 

Can show different? Which sports writes or historians from 1930's-1950's held Louis the regard as among the best three ever? I showed you its rare and Louis star rose in the 60'-70's, not while he was active or even retired for 10 years.

In order to think that, it should be common and easy to find. Please show me, I'd be willing to read it.

 

As I said earlier, I could find you examples of people calling him the GOAT before he held the title.

While this was grossly premature, it basically turned out to be right!

 

You're missing the point. I'm telling you it's not the norm on Louis to be viewed as top three while he was active or when he was retired for 10 years. Those who saw the previous champions simply felt they were better. It really not debatable. I listed several examples and told you when perceptions changed....when those who saw the champions before died out.

You can't find the names of people calling Louis top 3 while he was active or 10 years into retirement because the vast majority didn't see it that way. It would be rare if you did. Yet you are sure. You should think about it.

When I ask to see you cards as there may be examples I am unaware of, you cannot show anything.

Hype is part of any great heavyweight's rise, compare it to the backdrop of history is why I'm asking.

 

I could certainly find you articles from before Louis was champion or shortly after, that say that he is the greatest ever, or debate whether he or Jack Dempsey was the greatest ever.

For example the Chicago Defender published an article in 1937, where they asked readers whether Jack Johnson or Joe Louis was the greatest fighter ever!

 

Louis should be favored here imo....but Langford would be dangerous til the end, obviously

 

Right. It's because even back then many boxing aficionados deferred far too heavily to Nat Fleischer and the other old-time scribes' assessments of the fighters of yesteryear.

I vaguely recall seeing an old rankings list where one of the writers polled had never seen Jack Johnson fight but ranked him at number one because Fleischer spoke so highly of him.

 

The fact that the Chicago Defender was a black newspaper might have something to do with that. Do you have any other examples at your disposal?

 

Has that ever stopped?
Certainly hasn't on this forum.

 

So basically just ten years after he retired.