Sam Langord - P4P #1

Cmoyle · Sep 21, 2008

"ALso I think beating poor big men at HW that would be light heavyweights and cruserweights today isn't as great a P4P achievement as some make it out to be."

Wills, McVea, Jeannette... these three and many others that Langford not only defeated, but K.O.'d would be legitimate heavyweights today, not light-heavyweights.

Bummy Davis · Sep 21, 2008

Top 5 Pep,SRR,Langford,Greb,Duran,Benny Leonard,Armstrong,Marciano,SRL,Moore,Burley.Walker...not in order

janitor · Sep 21, 2008

Double post

ripcity · Sep 21, 2008

From the videos I mean film that i have seen of Sam Langford I am very impressed. I don't have him #1 but he is up there.

janitor · Sep 21, 2008

janitor said:

In terms of resume Harry Wills is right up there.

Only Louis and Ali beat a similar number of world class fighters.

It is probably fair to asume that he would have gone through most of the champions of the 30s at his best.

LANGFORD WAS A BONEFIED HEAVYWEIGHT HIMSELF. Langford was ripped at nearly 200lbs, meaning he didnt have a huge weight disadvantage. If anything the most extrodinery aspect was Langford added 60lbs of solid muscle mass throughout his career

Click to expand...

WRONG

Langford was never more than a light heavyweight.

He was fat at 190 lbs.

James Toney has beaten Super Heavies on steroids and hes naturally not much bigger than Langford, but Toney for good reason isnt the GOAT

Click to expand...

Jesus you have no idea.

Langford fought Wills, McVea and Jeanette a dozen times each.

These are not fighters like Ramhan or Peter they are all time greats.

Langford isnt the only former smaller man at heavyweight

Langford - 140lbs at 20
Ezzard Charles - 160lbs in his 20s
Archie Moore - 160lbs in his 20s
Billy Conn - 160lber in his 20s
Patterson - former 160lber
Roy Jones - former 160lber
James Toney - former 160lber
Bivins - 154lbs at 21yo

Click to expand...

So he is 20 lbs lighter than all of them at 20.

That is a lot.

Bare in mind those men started at heavier weights but the heavyweights they fought were bigger than the heavyweights Langford fought

Click to expand...

Really?

Langford fought world class oponents as big as Lennox Lewis.

Bottom line, Langford heavyweight campaign overrates him a little. Hes great ofcourse but clearly all those other men had just as much natural disadvantages facing bigger men
Click to expand...

No

Your lack of knowledge about his career under-rates him a great deal.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Loewe · Sep 21, 2008

PowerPuncher said:

James Toney has beaten Super Heavies on steroids and hes naturally not much bigger than Langford, but Toney for good reason isnt the GOAT
Click to expand...

Which super hw did he beat? Can´t think of one beside Sam Peter and if he is in shape he wouldn´t be one.

PowerPuncher said:

Roy Jones - former 160lber
James Toney - former 160lber

Click to expand...

Sorry but Jones had one fight at hw and that against a pretty mediocre fighter, he is nowhere comparable to the other mentioned guys. We had already a Toney discussion once and I still don´t think he did anything impressive at hw. He shouldn´t be on this list either.

Quickhands21 · Sep 21, 2008

janitor said:

Do you consider Harry Wills and Sam McVea to be poor big men?

These guys were all time greats and basicaly superheavyweights without steroids.
Click to expand...

Amen..It is completely fair..I have him ahead of Robinson and Armstrong

Holmes' Jab · Sep 21, 2008

I've Armstrong at #1 with Robinson at #2, but you could make a strong case for any of the general consensus top 5 to be considered 'best' - Langford is amongst that clutch.

Minotauro · Sep 21, 2008

He has one of the best claims he beat greats from lightweight to heavy nobody has ever done that before or since and has one of if not the greatest resume ever. I have him at 3 p4p and believe his resume is the greatest followed by Greb and Charles.

McGrain · Sep 21, 2008

Minotauro said:

He has one of the best claims he beat greats from lightweight to heavy nobody has ever done that before or since and has one of if not the greatest resume ever. I have him at 3 p4p and believe his resume is the greatest followed by Greb and Charles.
Click to expand...

Really? I always felt Greb and Charles maybe edged him in terms of who his victims were...interesting.

Seamus · Sep 21, 2008

Way up there. Certainly in the discussion. On film he does not look like a complete fighter but there is only so much film. However, his record is impeccable.

Maxmomer · Sep 21, 2008

PowerPuncher said:

Overall boxing hadn't reached the level it would reach in the 40s-50s skills wise in those times.

ALso I think beating poor big men at HW that would be light heavyweights and cruserweights today isn't as great a P4P achievement as some make it out to be.
Click to expand...

Poor, light-heavy's? You mean like the 6'3" 220 pound arguably top 10 ATG heavyweight Harry Wills? George Godfrey? Bearcat Wright? Sam McVea?

he grant · Sep 21, 2008

Langford is my choice for all time pound for pound number 1 guy based on who he defeated ... Robinson, Charles, Greb are right there but I ay Sam beats them all straight up ...

PowerPuncher · Sep 21, 2008

janitor said:

1. In terms of resume Harry Wills is right up there. Only Louis and Ali beat a similar number of world class fighters.

2. It is probably fair to asume that he would have gone through most of the champions of the 30s at his best.

Quote:

LANGFORD WAS A BONEFIED HEAVYWEIGHT HIMSELF. Langford was ripped at nearly 200lbs, meaning he didnt have a huge weight disadvantage. If anything the most extrodinery aspect was Langford added 60lbs of solid muscle mass throughout his career

3. WRONG

Langford was never more than a light heavyweight.

He was fat at 190 lbs.

Quote:
James Toney has beaten Super Heavies on steroids and hes naturally not much bigger than Langford, but Toney for good reason isnt the GOAT

4. Jesus you have no idea.

Langford fought Wills, McVea and Jeanette a dozen times each.

These are not fighters like Ramhan or Peter they are all time greats.

Langford isnt the only former smaller man at heavyweight

Quote:

Langford - 140lbs at 20
Ezzard Charles - 160lbs in his 20s
Archie Moore - 160lbs in his 20s
Billy Conn - 160lber in his 20s
Patterson - former 160lber
Roy Jones - former 160lber
James Toney - former 160lber
Bivins - 154lbs at 21yo

5. So he is 20 lbs lighter than all of them at 20.

That is a lot.

Quote:

Bare in mind those men started at heavier weights but the heavyweights they fought were bigger than the heavyweights Langford fought

6. Really?

Langford fought world class oponents as big as Lennox Lewis.

Quote:
Bottom line, Langford heavyweight campaign overrates him a little. Hes great ofcourse but clearly all those other men had just as much natural disadvantages facing bigger men

7. No

Your lack of knowledge about his career under-rates him a great deal..
Click to expand...

1. Wills is hard to gage, the depth of his resume is very questionable, the prime of his opponents is questionable. He didnt beat the calibre of boxers that the elite HWs beat

2. Speculation

3. I've never seen Langford not look muscular and conditioned

4. Yes he did fight those men allot of times, ofcourse Irate him higher than Toney at HW who was only an example, but Peter and Rahman are physically far bigger, far more muscular than anyone Langfords faced, and Rahman has the bigger win of any of those men

5. Yes but he was in with men lesser than Marciano, Walcott, Louis, Liston, Ali. Except for Jack Johnson when he was treated with contempt

6. Langford fought a world class man who was 6'5, ripped muscle at 240lbs? Must have missed that 1

7. No, hes great but his weight jumping and heavyweight career somewhat overrates him, a 185lb chizzled man wasnt small in the early 1900s. I stand by that
Click to expand...

PowerPuncher · Sep 21, 2008

Loewe said:

Which super hw did he beat? Can´t think of one beside Sam Peter and if he is in shape he wouldn´t be one.

Sorry but Jones had one fight at hw and that against a pretty mediocre fighter, he is nowhere comparable to the other mentioned guys. We had already a Toney discussion once and I still don´t think he did anything impressive at hw. He shouldn´t be on this list either.
Click to expand...

Ruiz, Peter, Rahman and even Holyfield were HUGE by 1900s standards. Were talking 20-40lbs of muscle on 1900s heavyweights.

Log in or Sign up

Sam Langord - P4P #1

Cmoyle Active Member Full Member

Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Loewe internet hero Full Member

Quickhands21 Well-Known Member Full Member

Holmes' Jab Master Jabber Full Member

Minotauro Boxing Addict Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Maxmomer Boxing Addict Full Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

Sam Langord - P4P #1

Cmoyle Active Member Full Member

Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

janitor VIP Member Full Member

Loewe internet hero Full Member

Quickhands21 Well-Known Member Full Member

Holmes' Jab Master Jabber Full Member

Minotauro Boxing Addict Full Member

McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Maxmomer Boxing Addict Full Member

he grant Historian/Film Maker

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member