I see a lot of parallels between these two. I'm interested in hearing peoples' views on why Langford was greater - I don't think I've ever seen Moore placed above. I rate them #5 and #7, respectively. If I were to give one reason why, it would be that Langford beat better heavyweights. Opposing that, does Moore's consistency mean anything? Would Valdez and Baker be more significant in the 1910s? Was Moore a better middleweight or light heavyweight? Is Moore's basket of heavyweight wins worth much in quantity, or were they all ****? Moore carried on better, for longer, but do Langford's eye issues justify that? Who faced tougher opposition? Many questions. Would be good to see how people rate them at: Middleweight Light heavyweight Heavyweight Thanks.
It's very very difficult because Boxrec doesn't list weights for a lot of Langford's fights. Pinning down fights in which both he and his opponent weighed in at 175lbs is really difficult, and it's no easier at a limit of 160lbs. People on this website can't even agree if a fight between two men who weigh in at 164lbs and 165lbs is a fight at MW or LHW. I don't think direct comparisons for divsion on division as you request are possible. Maybe Clay will have something to say about it. The reason I rate Langford (1-4) higher than Moore (10-15) is twofold. Firstly, I consider his reputation amongst his peers and in his press to be higher. Guys like Wills and Flynn rank him amongst the best hitter they faced and he does indeed have a better resume at the highest weight. But i'd also suggest that his top to bottom resume than Moore. Gans, even knackered and fighting at 140 is better than anything that Moore has at welter. At middle, he has the ***** performance against Ketchel (hard to know what to make of it) and waaaaay past prime he beat Tiger Flowers, also a borderline ATG for his division. He seems, to me, to be held in higher regard, has his own version of astonishing longevity and a better top to bottom haul of top names. He also has wins over the best Heavies he met, not the case for the naturally bigger Moore. You'd have to work very very hard to make the case for Archie, and that normally means you shouldn't be bothering. Langford is a class above.
Good points, good points... ... As opposition (I believe Langford was greater, but not by many spaces at all) I will come back and say: - Moore lost to the best heavyweights he faced because they (Marciano, Patterson, Ali) were better as a group than McVey, Jeanette and Wills - Langford got more chances against them - I feel Langford has more at the top and bottom, but that Moore has it in the middle - those four Johnson wins just do it for me, plus Marshall, Maxim, Williams, Bivins and so on Not sure what I can say about Moore and his reputation, although it was of course fearsome (my avatar says it all) if not quite there with Langford's. I do get the feeling Moore would have adopted a similar role in Langford's time.
Old boxers are hard to gauge. On the one hand I give them credit for fighting more often in rougher times, yet on the other, these less regulated bouts were often the subject of shady goings on or mutual agreements between fighters. Goes on in any era, but more so back then.
Langford undoubtedly one of the greatest fighters of all time, and of course so is Moore. But in answer to the question I say NO. and here's why, I have always maintained that in the evolution of Boxing from "fighting, brawling, wrestling & holding" to a really Fine Level of Scientific and the Artfull Craft of "Boxing" there was a decisive period and PEAK too. Boxing began to really look refined by the mid 20s (of course there were exception before this) and became the norm a decade later by the early mid 30s, peaking to the 60s, 70s before it weakened again, not so much in skillfull operators but in numbers of fighters effecting comp and number of fights. anyway as a result of this Moore's period was BETTER and at the absolute PEAK of the sport, giving him and his peers an edge over the greats from 2 decades and beyond previous, and at the other end of the progression better than most in the last 30 years. So YES Moore was better.
Archie was active in a more competitive more developed period of the sport, essentially around it's peak in many ways. Langford is probably a little better in his own time, but it is a weaker less competitive era
I think Archie edges Sam with accomplishments but it was a different era, head to head its a close call but I think Archie would beat Sam or they would split a few
Sam Langford came from a time where fighting southpaw was seen as worse than fighting with your hands below your waist.
