The Evening World scored Langford a *shutout* over Joe Gans. Sam was 17 at the time.

that line belongs to the one and only ROY JONES JUNIOR! who's this ****ing langford clown??!!

kidding aside, to hold (in the eyes of many) conclusive victories over joe gans, joe walcott, stanley ketchel, jack o'brien and NUMEROUS top heavyweights puts him at the very top of the all time list.

a very strong argument can be made based on his current resume for number 1 and if he got the fights he deserved, he'd almost be guaranteed a joint spot for number 1 with greb and robinson

 

Definately in the top two or three no questions asked.

 

agreed, the more and more i compare resumes, it's very easy to put langford as #1. he shouldn't be outside anyone's top 5 imo. he gets penalized because he fought so long ago and the lack of footage. probably the biggest bad ass to ever step in the ring.

 

agreed, and his record is misleading. if he didn't spend so much time fighting world class heavies while still a middleweight, instead sticking to fighters near his weightclass, just imagine what his resume would look like.

from 160-175, was there anyone who had a chance of consistently beating him?

 

I would love to see more footage of him and some footage period of Barbados Joe Walcott. Both are top 5 ATGs and as much as I like Robinson, he is NOT the clear GOAT. I don't think anyone is as there still is Greb, Armstrong,etc. that's why I don't take ATG/"Who's the Greatest?" rankings too seriously. Great fighter that Langford was and no one in this time or afterwards will ever repeat what he did so that makes him even greater.

 

ahead of his time. wonderful talent.

all factors taken into account, i have to place him near the top all time. one of my favorites without question.

 

J, not to detract from Sam Langford's legacy. But the fight with Stanley Ketchel was called a draw in 1910. Langford was about 12-15 pounds heavier
than the fading Ketchel,who was most probably addicted to opium by this time.Ketchel was in bad shape by then and went to his friend's ranch in Conway, Missouri to recuperate,where Stanley six months later was shot and killed.Langford was in his prime at 27 years old,and was a much bigger man
than the Michigan Assassin, by then...

 

The IBHO register has Ketchel, ND-W 6,and the result can be debated, but the fact remains Sam Langford was the bigger man for that fight. Both at 158 lbs, Ketchel was the equal of Langford. In their middleweight primes,no one was superior to Ketchel, by the vast majority of writers of that time...

 

I'd wager Langford was the better fighter through and through without a second's hesitation. Ketchell strikes me as a sort of bigger Terry McGovern/Kid Lavigne type. A rugged, bullish banger without a whole lot of versatility (although that doesn't detract from their effectiveness), whereas Langford would be on any short list for the most well-rounded fighters to ever lace 'em up.

 

this is a question for everyone on this thread: do you think ketchel was past his prime or that he could have recovered sufficiently to still be the force of old (or even better)?

when i first read about ketchel, most of the material i saw felt that he had yet to reach his prime at 24. thoughts?

 

I tend to think the next 30 years for the division was just as good or better. But then I guess noone really reigned supreme in those years save maybe Greb.

As an aside regarding the thread title, how highly do you rate the Gans win given the circumstances? Gans obviously wasn't in top form, and from I understand (according to Senya) the win has been propped up a lot more since, whereas at the time it wasn't considered nearly as highly. I'm assuming that would have to do with Gans's condition.