Sam Langford Pound for Pound Jack Johnson Best Heavy?

[dagosd2000]

When Nat Fleischer interviewed Sam Langford before his death,Sam told him that Jack Johnson was the only fighter that "gave me a good beating" So what does this say about the two fighters?

There was a recent post about Langford's fighting weight against Johnson(156 lbs.) I was looking at Langford's career and as always am amazed. Let's look at his bouts with heavyweights. 23 bouts with Harry Wills. Sam's first bout with Wills Sam was 31 years of age. Wills was only knocked out 3 times. Twice by Langford and once by Uzcudon in his last fight. Wills was 6ft. 4 inches 220lbs. Sam McVey:Langford won 4 lost 2,5 no decisions. McVey was 5ft. 10in. 205lbs. Joe Jeanette:4 wins(1 KO) 3 losses,5 no decisions. Jeanette was 5ft. 10in. 190lbs. Langford defeated Jim Barry 6 times,6 no decisions and was 3 wins 1loss 2no decisions against Jeff Clarke. He knocked out Jim Flynn 3 times. George Godfrey in one round when Sam was 38.

Can you imagine Sugar Ray Robinson at 160lbs. fighting good heavyweights of his era on a similar magnitude of Langford? Granted that Langford could go up to 180lbs.,but he was only 5ft. 7in. Robinson was 5ft. 11in. Suger Ray was having trouble with middleweights when he was 35. Langford was sitll fighting hevyweights into his early 40's. Maybe Doc Kearns wasn't kidding when he said Dempsey would have trouble beating Langford. Dempsey for whatever reason never fought Wills. Sam fought Wills 23 times.

Throw in fights with Gans,Walcott,Philadelphia Jack O'Brien,Ketchel,and Tiger Flowers(KO in 2 when Sam was 39),Blackburn,Kid Norfolk,and other heavies like Mike Schreck,Bill Tate,and Bearcat Wright and it is a record that no other fighter in history can match. Not even Sugar Ray who is often considered the greatest P4P of all time.

This comes back to Johnson, and Langford's comment about his fight with the Galveston Giant. Could Langford be the bestP4P? And Johnson the best Heavy?

[Diamond WEAPON]

The era Langford fought in was not nearly as good as the eras that succeeded it. Back in the turn of the century boxing was still a Circus sport and although Langford was a great fighter and kicked a lot of ass across weight divisions, doing that was pretty much impossible by Robinson's era simply because each individual weight class was MUCH more professional and competetive than at the turn of the century. In a sense you can only do as much as your era allows though and Langford did do a hell of a lot. He's high but the simple lack of competition overall for the era belowHeavyweight holds him back a little versus other Lb4Lbers.

[Brute]

Langford fought heavyweights when he was less than 140 lbs, although he was over 180 pounds late in his career. He won a non-title fight against lightweight champion Joe Gans in about 1905 with Langford at 136.5 lbs and Gans 140 lbs, but never fought him fought Gans for his title. Sam never seemed to see himself as anything but a heavyweight.

Langford was still winning fights when Jack Dempsey was champion. I would not say boxing was a circus act at that time.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Langford fought heavyweights when he was less than 140 lbs, although he was over 180 pounds late in his career. He won a non-title fight against lightweight champion Joe Gans in about 1905 with Langford at 136.5 lbs and Gans 140 lbs, but never fought him fought Gans for his title. Sam never seemed to see himself as anything but a heavyweight.

Langford was still winning fights when Jack Dempsey was champion. I would not say boxing was a circus act at that time.

I wasn't saying it to be derogatory, I'm just saying the level of competition wasn't at the level it took later on because boxing was still considered a bit theatric. By the 1920's it seemed to get more competitive and the continued that way until it seemed to plateau in the 1940's as far as the fierceness of competition across the sport and since then has had various ups and downs by division and time.

[Ezzard]

Langford fought heavyweights when he was less than 140 lbs, although he was over 180 pounds late in his career. He won a non-title fight against lightweight champion Joe Gans in about 1905 with Langford at 136.5 lbs and Gans 140 lbs, but never fought him fought Gans for his title. Sam never seemed to see himself as anything but a heavyweight.

Langford was still winning fights when Jack Dempsey was champion. I would not say boxing was a circus act at that time.

I wasn't saying it to be derogatory, I'm just saying the level of competition wasn't at the level it took later on because boxing was still considered a bit theatric. By the 1920's it seemed to get more competitive and the continued that way until it seemed to plateau in the 1940's as far as the fierceness of competition across the sport and since then has had various ups and downs by division and time.

It wasn't as professional in some senses, no, but guys like Dixon, Gans, Walcott, Ketchel, Johnson and Dempsey regularly make all-time top 10s and many are in with a shout at the #1 spot. Langford beat Gans, Walcott and drew with Ketchel in a largely inconclusive fight.

Yet... When I read Langford's record it seems impossible that he did these things. How can a guy who is 5'7'' KO a giant like Wills?

Whilst some eras are stronger than others this is, IMO, due to more people in the sport rather than anything else.

Langford also blew away Kid Norfolk who often appears in LHW top 10s.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Langford fought heavyweights when he was less than 140 lbs, although he was over 180 pounds late in his career. He won a non-title fight against lightweight champion Joe Gans in about 1905 with Langford at 136.5 lbs and Gans 140 lbs, but never fought him fought Gans for his title. Sam never seemed to see himself as anything but a heavyweight.

Langford was still winning fights when Jack Dempsey was champion. I would not say boxing was a circus act at that time.

I wasn't saying it to be derogatory, I'm just saying the level of competition wasn't at the level it took later on because boxing was still considered a bit theatric. By the 1920's it seemed to get more competitive and the continued that way until it seemed to plateau in the 1940's as far as the fierceness of competition across the sport and since then has had various ups and downs by division and time.

It wasn't as professional in some senses, no, but guys like Dixon, Gans, Walcott, Ketchel, Johnson and Dempsey regularly make all-time top 10s and many are in with a shout at the #1 spot. Langford beat Gans, Walcott and drew with Ketchel in a largely inconclusive fight.

Yet... When I read Langford's record it seems impossible that he did these things. How can a guy who is 5'7'' KO a giant like Wills?

Whilst some eras are stronger than others this is, IMO, due to more people in the sport rather than anything else.

Langford also blew away Kid Norfolk who often appears in LHW top 10s.

Yeah, I sometimes feel certain old-timers get ranked a bit too high because of a significant nostalgia factor for many of the old-writers and such. The "more people in the sport" thing was actually a large part of what I was getting at, along with ever-advancing training techniques that force fighters in general to step their games up. The thing with Norfolk however seems a bit strange to me, but some of the other guys you mentioned being rated so high in their weight classes also seems a bit of an overshoot to me anyway because of nostalgia.

[Ezzard]

I wasn't saying it to be derogatory, I'm just saying the level of competition wasn't at the level it took later on because boxing was still considered a bit theatric. By the 1920's it seemed to get more competitive and the continued that way until it seemed to plateau in the 1940's as far as the fierceness of competition across the sport and since then has had various ups and downs by division and time.

It wasn't as professional in some senses, no, but guys like Dixon, Gans, Walcott, Ketchel, Johnson and Dempsey regularly make all-time top 10s and many are in with a shout at the #1 spot. Langford beat Gans, Walcott and drew with Ketchel in a largely inconclusive fight.

Yet... When I read Langford's record it seems impossible that he did these things. How can a guy who is 5'7'' KO a giant like Wills?

Whilst some eras are stronger than others this is, IMO, due to more people in the sport rather than anything else.

Langford also blew away Kid Norfolk who often appears in LHW top 10s.

Yeah, I sometimes feel certain old-timers get ranked a bit too high because of a significant nostalgia factor for many of the old-writers and such. The "more people in the sport" thing was actually a large part of what I was getting at, along with ever-advancing training techniques that force fighters in general to step their games up. The thing with Norfolk however seems a bit strange to me, but some of the other guys you mentioned being rated so high in their weight classes also seems a bit of an overshoot to me anyway because of nostalgia.

I don't go with the ever-advancing training routines and better diet etc... It may or may not be the case but it has no bearing on who are the greatest fighters. The training argument is like saying that I'm smarter than Einstein because he'd never heard of the internet.

Put yesterdays' greats in a modern gym and they'd adapt. Put today's greats back into yesterday's gym and they'd adapt.

[dempseyfire]

Langford fought heavyweights when he was less than 140 lbs, although he was over 180 pounds late in his career. He won a non-title fight against lightweight champion Joe Gans in about 1905 with Langford at 136.5 lbs and Gans 140 lbs, but never fought him fought Gans for his title. Sam never seemed to see himself as anything but a heavyweight.

Langford was still winning fights when Jack Dempsey was champion. I would not say boxing was a circus act at that time.

I wasn't saying it to be derogatory, I'm just saying the level of competition wasn't at the level it took later on because boxing was still considered a bit theatric. By the 1920's it seemed to get more competitive and the continued that way until it seemed to plateau in the 1940's as far as the fierceness of competition across the sport and since then has had various ups and downs by division and time.

"circus sport" . . and this incredible insight comes from what exactly???

Boxing in the 19teens was the biggest sport in America behind baseball.

Langford wasn't consistently beating Heavyweights until he weighed in the 170s and above, and over the decades you've seen many light HWs and former light HWs have success vs Heavyweights (the top HW of the 1940s, your most competetive era, was given hell by a 168 light-hitter in Conn). And given that Langford was one of those very special Michael Jordan/Babe Ruth/Ali once in a lifetime athletes and fighters, it doesn't point to him being in a 'weak' era at all.

[Diamond WEAPON]

It wasn't as professional in some senses, no, but guys like Dixon, Gans, Walcott, Ketchel, Johnson and Dempsey regularly make all-time top 10s and many are in with a shout at the #1 spot. Langford beat Gans, Walcott and drew with Ketchel in a largely inconclusive fight.

Yet... When I read Langford's record it seems impossible that he did these things. How can a guy who is 5'7'' KO a giant like Wills?

Whilst some eras are stronger than others this is, IMO, due to more people in the sport rather than anything else.

Langford also blew away Kid Norfolk who often appears in LHW top 10s.

Yeah, I sometimes feel certain old-timers get ranked a bit too high because of a significant nostalgia factor for many of the old-writers and such. The "more people in the sport" thing was actually a large part of what I was getting at, along with ever-advancing training techniques that force fighters in general to step their games up. The thing with Norfolk however seems a bit strange to me, but some of the other guys you mentioned being rated so high in their weight classes also seems a bit of an overshoot to me anyway because of nostalgia.

I don't go with the ever-advancing training routines and better diet etc... It may or may not be the case but it has no bearing on who are the greatest fighters. The training argument is like saying that I'm smarter than Einstein because he'd never heard of the internet.

Put yesterdays' greats in a modern gym and they'd adapt. Put today's greats back into yesterday's gym and they'd adapt.

Yeah, very true, and I agree. I'm really trying to find a way to explain my thoughts on the subject without sounding like I'm downing Langford. I mean you can only do as much as you're era allows you so to speak. I only brought up the training methods and stuff because imo it seemed as though boxing's popularity as far as having full-time fighters all training at relatively similar paces seemed to grow later on.

That was another point of mine that I failed to bring up also Dempseyfire, people idealize the 154lber vs. Heavyweight thing but what you said is true about him being bigger and stronger when he fought most of his HW fights. Like I mentioned before, I wasn't really trying to dis Langford at all even though it might've come off that way, what Langford did was pretty amazing throughout his career regardless of overall generational opposition, but that opposition still plays a role in determining all-time lb4lb status. Robinson is #1 for me because of all the reasons I've previously mentioned. Langford is definitely high though, like I said.

[dempseyfire]

Yeah, I sometimes feel certain old-timers get ranked a bit too high because of a significant nostalgia factor for many of the old-writers and such. The "more people in the sport" thing was actually a large part of what I was getting at, along with ever-advancing training techniques that force fighters in general to step their games up. The thing with Norfolk however seems a bit strange to me, but some of the other guys you mentioned being rated so high in their weight classes also seems a bit of an overshoot to me anyway because of nostalgia.

I don't go with the ever-advancing training routines and better diet etc... It may or may not be the case but it has no bearing on who are the greatest fighters. The training argument is like saying that I'm smarter than Einstein because he'd never heard of the internet.

Put yesterdays' greats in a modern gym and they'd adapt. Put today's greats back into yesterday's gym and they'd adapt.

Yeah, very true, and I agree. I'm really trying to find a way to explain my thoughts on the subject without sounding like I'm downing Langford. I mean you can only do as much as you're era allows you so to speak. I only brought up the training methods and stuff because imo it seemed as though boxing's popularity as far as having full-time fighters all training at relatively similar paces seemed to grow later on.

That was another point of mine that I failed to bring up also Dempseyfire, people idealize the 154lber vs. Heavyweight thing but what you said is true about him being bigger and stronger when he fought most of his HW fights. Like I mentioned before, I wasn't really trying to dis Langford at all even though it might've come off that way, what Langford did was pretty amazing throughout his career regardless of overall generational opposition, but that opposition still plays a role in determining all-time lb4lb status. Robinson is #1 for me because of all the reasons I've previously mentioned. Langford is definitely high though, like I said.

And it's not like a bunch of 154-160 lbers were beating HWs. You had Fitz at 165ish defeating guys weighing 180-200 lbs, you had some extremely skilled and talented 170-180ish lbers beating big HWs (Levinsky, Norfolk, Langford, Jeff Clark) who I believe could've cleaned house on the overweight slugs of today. But it's not like Ketchel and Al McCoy were knocking out all of these 200 lbers. The likes of McVey, Fulton, Jeannette, Langford, Coffey, Smith, Willis etc. were all full-time fighters . . boxing wasn't some side-show.

[HomicideHenry]

I find it odd, in ways, that Langford would say John was the only one to ever really give him a beating, totally dominating him, when if I recall Harry Wills beat his ass over a dozen times.

[dagosd2000]

I find it odd, in ways, that Langford would say John was the only one to ever really give him a beating, totally dominating him, when if I recall Harry Wills beat his ass over a dozen times.

HH,Langford lost to Wills 6 times. 15 ND. 5 of the 6 losses were after 1917 when Langford was blind in one eye(Fulton Fight) and 37 years old(1917). Just food for thought. Great back and forth on this one.

[Ezzard]

The one thing that bugs me about all of this is Langford's KO record.

We've evidence of people like Walker, Toney and Byrd etc moving up to HW. There's also Conn, Tunney and Spinks.... But none of these guys were KOing the top HWs of their day, and the top HWs of Langford's day were some of the finest ever.

Why hasn't their been a 5'7'' destroyer of giants since?

[Diamond WEAPON]

I don't go with the ever-advancing training routines and better diet etc... It may or may not be the case but it has no bearing on who are the greatest fighters. The training argument is like saying that I'm smarter than Einstein because he'd never heard of the internet.

Put yesterdays' greats in a modern gym and they'd adapt. Put today's greats back into yesterday's gym and they'd adapt.

Yeah, very true, and I agree. I'm really trying to find a way to explain my thoughts on the subject without sounding like I'm downing Langford. I mean you can only do as much as you're era allows you so to speak. I only brought up the training methods and stuff because imo it seemed as though boxing's popularity as far as having full-time fighters all training at relatively similar paces seemed to grow later on.

That was another point of mine that I failed to bring up also Dempseyfire, people idealize the 154lber vs. Heavyweight thing but what you said is true about him being bigger and stronger when he fought most of his HW fights. Like I mentioned before, I wasn't really trying to dis Langford at all even though it might've come off that way, what Langford did was pretty amazing throughout his career regardless of overall generational opposition, but that opposition still plays a role in determining all-time lb4lb status. Robinson is #1 for me because of all the reasons I've previously mentioned. Langford is definitely high though, like I said.

And it's not like a bunch of 154-160 lbers were beating HWs. You had Fitz at 165ish defeating guys weighing 180-200 lbs, you had some extremely skilled and talented 170-180ish lbers beating big HWs (Levinsky, Norfolk, Langford, Jeff Clark) who I believe could've cleaned house on the overweight slugs of today. But it's not like Ketchel and Al McCoy were knocking out all of these 200 lbers. The likes of McVey, Fulton, Jeannette, Langford, Coffey, Smith, Willis etc. were all full-time fighters . . boxing wasn't some side-show.

Again, I wasn't trying to say it was a side-show, just that there was a much larger disparity between quality fighters back then.

[dempseyfire]

The one thing that bugs me about all of this is Langford's KO record.

We've evidence of people like Walker, Toney and Byrd etc moving up to HW. There's also Conn, Tunney and Spinks.... But none of these guys were KOing the top HWs of their day, and the top HWs of Langford's day were some of the finest ever.

Why hasn't their been a 5'7'' destroyer of giants since?

Langford was pretty much a physical freak. Very short of stature but solid enough to carry 185 lbs of muscle, and he also had very long arms for someone of that height. Placed in the 19teens, maybe someone like a Spud Webb becomes a Langford-like prizefighter.

I disagree with DW about the disparity of talent . . I believe the 19teens were one of the deepest eras in boxing in terms of overall talent.

[Ezzard]

The one thing that bugs me about all of this is Langford's KO record.

We've evidence of people like Walker, Toney and Byrd etc moving up to HW. There's also Conn, Tunney and Spinks.... But none of these guys were KOing the top HWs of their day, and the top HWs of Langford's day were some of the finest ever.

Why hasn't their been a 5'7'' destroyer of giants since?

Langford was pretty much a physical freak. Very short of stature but solid enough to carry 185 lbs of muscle, and he also had very long arms for someone of that height. Placed in the 19teens, maybe someone like a Spud Webb becomes a Langford-like prizefighter.

I disagree with DW about the disparity of talent . . I believe the 19teens were one of the deepest eras in boxing in terms of overall talent.

I agree that the 19teens were a great era.

But if we're saying Langford's feats have never since been equaled. Then physical freak or not he must surely be p4p #1???

[dempseyfire]

The one thing that bugs me about all of this is Langford's KO record.

We've evidence of people like Walker, Toney and Byrd etc moving up to HW. There's also Conn, Tunney and Spinks.... But none of these guys were KOing the top HWs of their day, and the top HWs of Langford's day were some of the finest ever.

Why hasn't their been a 5'7'' destroyer of giants since?

Langford was pretty much a physical freak. Very short of stature but solid enough to carry 185 lbs of muscle, and he also had very long arms for someone of that height. Placed in the 19teens, maybe someone like a Spud Webb becomes a Langford-like prizefighter.

I disagree with DW about the disparity of talent . . I believe the 19teens were one of the deepest eras in boxing in terms of overall talent.

I agree that the 19teens were a great era.

But if we're saying Langford's feats have never since been equaled. Then physical freak or not he must surely be p4p #1???

I wouldn't argue with it. The guy knocked out Tiger Flowers when he was 39 years old and almost completly blind (had been deemed legally blind years prior). That is a helluva fighter

[Ambling Alp]

Ezzard and Demspeyfire are right that the Teens had great depth at heavyweight. Johnson, Jeaneete,McVey,Wills, then Dempsey at the end of the decade. Not to mention Willard,Fulton,Morris,Smith, McCarty etc.

As for pound for pound, that is always hard to decide. However, Langford has to be on the short list of contneders for the honor.

The fact that Langford was never the champion certainly has been a factor in why he doesn't get enough recognition, though most people on this forum appreciate his greatness. If you had to nitpick and find negatives about his career, you could point that he did lose to Gunboat Smith and had other losses and draws.
Another problem is that we don't know how big he was for much of his career. We only know that he weighed only 156 in 1906, and was at 185 by 1913. However, it's safe to say that was smaller than many of the fighters that he beat.
He beat so many great fighters in such a long career, often when he had severe size and/or age disadvantages.

Langford probably has about as much claim as anyone else as the greatest fighter of all time.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I'm starting to come around to that logic...

You have to wonder how much his recognition suffers as a result of never having laid claim to the title.

[dr_devious]

Langford didnt win a title because he was black. How does that hurt his legacy? Langford may well be p4p number 1 of all time, hes certainly a total one off. Think about it, he beat Gans in a non-title fight at LW, and beat Wills at HW. No-one else could get near that in the history of boxing - beating ATG fighters over such a span of weight divisions.......lightweight to heavyweight........its supernatural actually

[dagosd2000]

Another thing we can kick around with this:lLangford never altered his style. He was still wading in fighting bigger men. Ray Robinson,Ray Leonard,and Emile Griffith come to my mind as welters who moved up and relied on their proven boxing skills to be successfull. Yet these three never ventured into the heavyweight division. Robinson fought Maxim. Leonard fought LaLonde. Griffith(it has always been said) fought Monzon past his prime. Emile's first fight with Carlos is when he was 33. As great as the three I have mentioned,I wonder what physical toll they would have endured if they had fought a steady diet of light heavies and heavyweights?

Wills first victory over Sam was when Langford was 36. They fought 19 times after that.
Throw in his fights with McVey,Jeanette,Godfrey,Norfolk,Bearcat Wright,and Clarke(and those are just the heavyweights with the exception Norfolk) and the others Flynn,Flowers(when he was blind in one eye and nearly blind in the other) after he was 36,it sounds so unbelievable that he's often overlooked for P4P all time best.

Remember when they found him living in a basement in a poor part of Boston in 1954? The guys pitched together a got him a cataract operation. They asked him how he felt. Sam had that wide smile and he still couldn't see. His eyes were closed . But he says"As long as I have my guitar and my memories,I'm happy"

You made us feel happy big fella and always will. I know he's still throwing those hooks to the body. Say "hi" to the Brown Bomber for us. And tell Ol' Arch I miss him.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Langford didnt win a title because he was black. How does that hurt his legacy? Langford may well be p4p number 1 of all time, hes certainly a total one off. Think about it, he beat Gans in a non-title fight at LW, and beat Wills at HW. No-one else could get near that in the history of boxing - beating ATG fighters over such a span of weight divisions.......lightweight to heavyweight........its supernatural actually

I was talking about the way Langford is perceived generally, not in reference to myself.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Another thing we can kick around with this:lLangford never altered his style. He was still wading in fighting bigger men. Ray Robinson,Ray Leonard,and Emile Griffith come to my mind as welters who moved up and relied on their proven boxing skills to be successfull. Yet these three never ventured into the heavyweight division. Robinson fought Maxim. Leonard fought LaLonde. Griffith(it has always been said) fought Monzon past his prime. Emile's first fight with Carlos is when he was 33. As great as the three I have mentioned,I wonder what physical toll they would have endured if they had fought a steady diet of light heavies and heavyweights?

Wills first victory over Sam was when Langford was 36. They fought 19 times after that.
Throw in his fights with McVey,Jeanette,Godfrey,Norfolk,Bearcat Wright,and Clarke(and those are just the heavyweights with the exception Norfolk) and the others Flynn,Flowers(when he was blind in one eye and nearly blind in the other) after he was 36,it sounds so unbelievable that he's often overlooked for P4P all time best.

Remember when they found him living in a basement in a poor part of Boston in 1954? The guys pitched together a got him a cataract operation. They asked him how he felt. Sam had that wide smile and he still couldn't see. His eyes were closed . But he says"As long as I have my guitar and my memories,I'm happy"

You made us feel happy big fella and always will. I know he's still throwing those hooks to the body. Say "hi" to the Brown Bomber for us. And tell Ol' Arch I miss him.

[tonyevs]

Theres a soon to be released book on Sam Langford by Clay Moyle, Clay has put in more than a good few years research into the book and it promises to be excellent.

Just to add..
Langford its argued, could have won world titles from lightweight up to heavy...as long as Johnson wasn`t in his way of course

[cmoyle]

"Theres a soon to be released book on Sam Langford by Clay Moyle"

I don't check this forum too often, but did today and saw this Langford thread. I thought the book would be out by this month or next, but the printer was involved in a move and that delayed their printing of the proof that is being sent out to a number of reviewers. I'm told that the proofs will be mailed toward the end of next week now and that any reviewers who wish to respond will be asked to do so within three weeks. So the book is coming soon, it's just been delayed by a couple of months.