Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Journeyman92, Jun 6, 2023.
I must ask you chose one to submit for your vote- it’s a legal obligation.
@Seamus Every poster counted in the ranks or it’s off to the gulags with you.
@Shay Sonya Are you a Langford kinda gal?
Oh absolutely I do not want to Violate The Law.
I gotta go with SRR.
Sometimes the most conventional option is the wisest choice.
85 & either 0 or he may have lost 2 as an amateur, with 69 KOs.
He reached 129-1-2 as a Professional, fighting excellent competition often very frequently.
Only losing to Raging Bull-who was 16 lbs. heavier, 145-161.
And avenging it in their 5 subsequent bouts.
For a second act after unretiring he won & lost the MW title several times, fighting up to LHW.
Who really was as successful for as many fights against people his own size or larger?
Moving up even more divisions does not show superiority at what the intrinsic meaning of the question is-best for their weight.
Every other candidate did not have as sterling a record or fight as good competition or both.
Good fellow, don’t let me catch you round these parts again
What in the- freedom to vote but- you’re wrong.
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sorry I am happy to play along/come down to the squad & answer questions, but it is my Constitutional right to express my opinion.
But do feel free to tell me very specifically *why* you think I am wrong.
Folks so commonly emotionally favor those they identify with, admire, are emotionally invested in...
But how can Langford approach SRR pound for pound?
Overall record, much better.
Amateur record, no comparison.
Peak record, much better.
Competition & where the sport had evolved to, clearly higher.
Langford traversed even more weight classes, but that does not show that he was superior against those he fought in those matches-he was not fighting guys who were anything like modern HWs at say WW or MW...
And remember, you too are still under oath!
Oh no an actual debate- Could Robinson- Err- KO Wills, blind old and shot?
I severely doubt it!
But that is not a good, relevant point.
Besides that you need to consider all of their encounters, it is not who is better either giving them-or considering-their literal handicap.
It is not even who is BETTER in absolute terms.
The whole premise is pound for pound.
Sugar Ray did not have the natural capacity to add bulk & carry power at 175-180 like Langford did.
Just like say if the also great Ezzard Charles was better in absolute terms, because he was superbnweighing no less than the mid 180's.
But even the Cincinnati Cobra was never as dominant as Robinson was at WW, weighing in the mid-140's.
In fact today's WWs are more like MWs, so you would likely have to compare LWs to SRR in terms of what guys actually WEIGH in the ring-for literally the last 40 years!
Some guys just weigh a few lbs. more, others MORE than 10% of body weight regained.
Either way, I do not see how you can find Langford as good FOR his weight.
Relative to his time or across eras.
At varying points in the c.2-decades since I took a keen interest in boxing history, there have been 4 x fighters I've ranked as p4p GOAT. Those 4 have always comprised my top 4 in one order or another. Currently I have them:
So, whilst I'm with you on having SRR as #1, I do think a reasonable argument can be formulated for having Langford as #1, depending on your criteria:
SRR proved himself the best in the world at both WW and MW. Whilst he may have briefly been the best LW in the world he never beat the best LW in the world. Whilst he may have won the LHW world title had it not been so hot vs Maxim, I doubt he'd have beaten the best LHW in the world, Moore, or perhaps even Johnson, regardless of the temperature.
Langford on the other hand beat not only the best LW in the world, but a guy who 120-years later is still considered a top 3 LW of all time. Admittedly whilst Langford was a shade over the LW limit. He also beat BJW, a borderline top WW of all time today, Ketchel a top 10 MW of all time today and Kid Norfolk an arguable top 20 LHW of all time today. Despite being around 5ft 6.5ins tall, he beat the bigger Jeanette and McVea around 7 or 8 times each and was surely the best HW on the planet at one point.
Imagine the ridicule I'd rightly receive if I claimed that there was a 5ft 6.5ins 17 year old who could beat Lomachenko at LWW, then go onto to beat Crawford, Canelo and Beterviev at their respective weights, before prevailing over Wilder & AJ 7 or 8 times each, KO'ing Fury twice before going on to lose to him 13 times, most whilst horribly past prime.
Now Wilder, AJ and Fury are much bigger than McVea, Jeanette and Wills, but arguably that's offset to an extent by Gans, BJW, Ketchel and Norfolk being collectively greater (from an all time stamding perspective) than Loma, Crawford, Canelo and Beterbiev. Either way, considered in this context, Langford had no right to achieve what he did, its insane.
Like you, I have SRR #1 because of his consistent dominance during his prime, I consider him as far removed from the best of his peers as any boxer in history, but as per my original point, I have previously rated Langford there and think a reasonable argument for doing so can be posited.