The correct birthdate of Sam Langford has long been a topic of debate. Some said he was born as early as 1880, others 1883 or 1885, and many more including Sam himself have said 1886 (March 3) was the correct date. When I wrote my book about Sam I settled on the March 3, 1886 date as the most likely date for a variety of reasons. First, because Sam said that was the correct date. Secondly, it seemed to be pretty likely because of the birth years of the following siblings: Charles 1879, Walter 1883, Robert 1888, Annie 1874 and Sophia 1877. More recently, I have learned that there appears to have been another sister named Ellen May who it seems was born in 1881. As I attempted to solve the puzzle over the course of many years 1886 ended up being the year that made the most sense to me. The fact that his brother Walter was born in 1883 obviously rules that year out. I learned much of the above information concerning the birthdates of Sam's siblings as a result of the research of a woman named Rosemarie Pleasant who is the great-granddaughter of Sam's brother Walter. Earlier this month, I asked Rosemarie what she knew about another possible sister named Ellen May so she did some more digging and produced copies of a census that was taken in Canada in 1881 as well as 1891. There was no record of a Langford child named Sam or Samuel in the 1881 census. But, in the 1891 census there was a daughter named Ellen May listed as 10 years old at the time. Additional children of Robert and Charlotte Langford in that census and their ages were listed as follows: Annie (17), Sophia (14), Charles (12), Walter (8), Samuel (6), Robert Amos (2). When I received the above information from Rosemarie I pointed out that I have Sam's birthdate listed as March 3, 1886 in my book and if that's true he wouldn't have turned six until March of 1892 while this census lists him as six already. Her response was as follows: "Census birthdates are all over the place. I've seen discrepancies of up to 3 years. Some ages were approximated or guessed at. Some give month/year, only 1 had actual dates. Someone could be 56 in 1881 and 62 in 1891." So, what does it all mean? Well, I guess his actual birthdate remains a bit of a mystery. Personally, I believe he was most likely born in 1885 or 1886. I know that Kevin Smith investigated this as well many years ago and came to believe 1885 was the correct year. It may be. At this point in time I am convinced it was one of those two years, either 1885 or 1886. Thought this might be of interest to some on here so decided to pass this latest bit of information along.
Thanks very much. If you can't get a definitive date after exhaustive inquiries I don't suppose we will ever know for sure.:good That's two SL's we can't pin down for age. Sonny Liston and Sam Langford or ,as Mendoza once called him Sang Froid.
Based on U.S. Census records, I believe that Sonny Liston was born about 1931. I found him in the 1940 U.S. Census, but not the one for 1930. - Chuck Johnston
The problem with that, Chuck, is that it is rumoured that Sonny Liston was not "Sonny" Liston but rather took the name of Charles Sonny Liston from his brother, because he himself was considerably older, because of some legal problem, embarrassment regarding his standard of education at a certain age, or to legitimise his turning pro.
If he was born as late as 1886, that would make little more than a kid when tackling ATG's like Gans and Walcott. If true that's incredible. Nothing surprises me about this mans career tho. A champion fighter from LW through to Heavy and not diminished by the lack of opportunity to fight at world level. The most avoided in history?
But there's no actual evidence of that, it's just an unlikely story dreamt up by people determined to believe that Liston was already an old man when he became champion.
I don't say that it's true, I say that pinning a year to Charles Sonny Liston is not the bottom of that particular barrel. The evidence is the refusal to entertain, at camp, an older brother who identified himself to a reporter as Charles Liston and the Encylopedia Britannica entry. But I couldn't care one way or the other who believes what.
