Sam Langford VS -

That's debatable. While boxing has declined in the US. It's picked up in Europe, Russia, its former allied countries, and in parts of asia.

 

Where did you get the stat that there where more fighters back then?

To say their was strength in depth back then is wrong. For a start small guys had to fight bigger guys to make money or even just to get a fight especially the black fighters. As a result many settled at the heavier weights above their natural limit or jumped around divisions a lot. You had white champions that would not face black fighters, no Latino fighters to speak of. Most of the black fighters would fight each other 10 times or more. Lets face it boxing was far less organised back then so a champ like Dempsey or Sullivan could get away with out fighting black fighters with out anybody batting a eyelid.

 

the depth was high because there were so manty fighters. Don't talk nonsense that it was just the white fighters that refused to fight black fighters, black fighters did it too- although the latter was less common

 

exactly :good

 

:yep

 

And above that.

There is simply nobody in any weight class that Sam Langford would not have a shot at beating.

 

langford was great, but sometimes i think u overestimate the older gens.....i would not have a problem betting large sums of money that fighters like louis, foreman, liston would handle langford

 

haha i think we thought and posted the same thing at the same time

 

I would expect all of them to loose one fight to him in a series of three.

It took me many years to arive at that strange conclusion. When you study a fighter like Langford you have to build him up one peice at a time over a long period and you never quite know where you will end up.