Which of the lineal heavyweight champions would Sam Langford have beaten?

Ray Arcel.

I think he was.

 

He may have said "I'd rate Wills as a very good journeyman" now I think of it.

 

Like I've said, Arcel was a huge Dempsey fan. Can't take everything he says for granted, great as he was.

 

His admiration for Dempsey doesn't mean he was out to diminish Wills.
He probably saw them both fight. That means his opinion is worth more than mine or yours.

Anyway, my original point was "journeyman" isn't a defamatory term. It means a good, solid, craftsman who is good and proficient at his trade, but not outstanding.
In itself it is a relative term. Contenders can be journeymen, champions can too.
Add the "VERY GOOD" to "journeyman", and that could certainly mean a fighter who's really tough to beat, albeit one who falls short of being "great".

Bill Tate certainly falls within the journeyman category, he doesn't look special at all on film - and that's being polite - but he must have been quite consistently good, as a few of his results clearly prove so, and even for the fact that he was Dempsey's constant sparring partner.

 

Worth more doesn't mean it's anywhere close to being right. There are opinions and then there are facts. Unless, as you say, he was not using the word "journeyman" as a degoratory term but rather to describe him as a travelling boxer who took on all comers, but I happen to doubt that. He probably didn't think much of Wills, there was a Dempsey-Wills rivalry going on with both fighters having their own supporters, the Dempsey backers looking to degrade Wills for any setback and likewise with the Wills supporters.

Tate was no doubt a journeyman, but Wills was a fighter who beat many of the best fighters of the era, and barely lost a fight in a span of over a decade, with much of that time being spent as the legitimate number 1 contender without receiving a deserved title shot.

 

Sammy Langford was indeed a great overall fighter for the late 1890s and early 1900s without a doubt, but over the yrs I feel the sum ***** has also been over-blown and way too hyped as this hardcore ass-kicker who could've KO'd King Kong and Godzilla on the same night...

I'm sure Langford could've beaten many of the pre 1937 lineal champs at 200 pounds, but from Joe Louis and on upward things would get real tuff and hazy for Langford...

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Well, he clearly thought Demspey was better than Wills, and unlikely to have much trouble with him.
But "very good journeyman" isn't an insult by any means.
I think people mis-use the term "journeyman" in boxing, when they mean a "not good" boxer, a "ham-and-egger or a "bum".
Journeyman actually means a good professional, just not an exceptional one.

Sure, Wills probably deserves better than "very good journeyman", but opinions differ.
What he actually deserved was a title shot, and that would have settled it. I agree.

"Tate is no doubt a journeyman" .... Exactly ! And that's how this whole discussion started. Janitor thinks Tate was clearly better than journeyman level, but I think journeyman is absolutely the correct term for Tate.

 

I have to disagree with your accessment of Lewis-Tua. Tua didn't lose because he was too short. He lost because he was outta shape.

Look at Tua's weight for his earlier fights:

Ruiz 225
Wilson 226
Izon 223
Maskaev 223
Ibeabuchi 226
Rahman 224.5

then after fighting Rock, he weighs 237, 238, 253(!) and 243.5. He comes into the Lewis fight at 245? That's 20 lbs over his best fighting weight. The writing was on the wall at the weighin.

 

A journeyman contender.

Buster Douglas was a journeyman. John Ruiz was a journeyman. Ron Lyle was a journeyman. Henry Cooper was a journeyman.

 

Yes and what happened at those low weights? Rahman outboxed the magic 225lbs Tua until his left hooks after the bell finished things - should've been a DQ or NC. An older, more shopworn, Holyfield Headbutt Submitted Rahman then outboxed him again when Tua was 245lbs. Not much of a difference there, except this time Tua got knocked down after the bell.

223lbs against Maskaev but got outboxed there as well, until landing his sunday punch. The Ibeabuchi fight was fantastic, admittedly, and his conditioning certainly got him the W that night.

As for Izonritea, Wilson and Ruiz, I highly doubt he'd have any sort of trouble with them when weighing 245lbs (still talking about the green Ruiz here, not the huggy bear he'd turn into later).

I also noticed you conveniently left the Tua-Byrd fight off your list, where Tua was in great shape at 218lbs and not only got thoroughly outboxed, but was also hurt by Byrd's body punches.

All in all, Tua is certainly better below 230lbs, but I don't see that magic world of a difference, similar to the "Rooney Tyson is unbeatable" and the " '58 Liston cannot be beaten" mental masturbation of many ESB'ers.

If Tua-Lewis was a close shave like Tua-Ibeabuchi, then I can buy Tua losing 20lbs making the difference. But Tua was schooled, humiliated and completely helpless against Lennox Lewis. The Brit isn't too good for Tua, nor too tall, but he's too good AND tall.

 

I'm still yet to read any argument why Langford has any chance against Lewis or Wlad, other than "they have glass chins". How many 5'6" boxers in history have beaten world class 6'5" heavyweights? What evidence is there, at all?