Sam Langford underated as a heavyweight?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

if a guy asked u to name ur top 25 heavyweight list, most lists wont consist of sam langford.

reasons why??

perhaps people thought langford was too small, or just dont know much about him. or perhaps it was because he never won a title.


- its clear to most he was an all time great and one of the greatest light-H of all time

however what isnt clear is how good of a heavyweight he was.


langfords best days at heavyweight lasted from 1908-1913 where he was still in his prime.


langford in his best days as a heavyweight was only 5'7 185lbs but he was chizzled and despite being very short for a heavyweight, the 185lbs were made of solid huge muscle.

when u look at langfords resme u got to wonder why he isnt even in at least the top 20

won the series with HOF top 25 heavy joe jeanette

won the series with top 25 sam macvey

when aging and past his prime, he was still able to knockout and defeat top 30 or 25 heavy harry wills more than once.



how many fighters have 3 wins over top 25 heavies on there record??

not many.




- but perhaps people remember his dismal at the hands of johnson as to why he wasnt in the upper deck of heavyweights all time.

but one must remember langford still hadnt peaked and was only 156lbs when he fought jack johnson, which is nearly a junior middleweight. in fairness to johnson, he was only 185lb and hadnt reaches his peak as well.

but 154lb to 185lb is a more signifigant weight and body percantage advantage than 185lbs to 200lbs when the match should have taken place.


it would would have been interesting to see how a 185lb bigger stronger better fighter langford would deal with the peak johnson who now only outweighed him by 15lbs. i lean toward johnson, but perhaps langford would have put up a better fight.



but now we must see, how would he have done in other eras??

i say he would have done quite well and defintley been a champion or top contender in every era.


despite his lack of size advantage, he made up for that with incredible skill, speed, power, and defense. he had it all. he was the complete package. he also had an extremely long reach for such a short guy.

in fact langford was at his best against the bigger guys chopping them down to size.

and u cant use the classic line " well he never beat a skilled big heavyweight" because guys like wills and mcvey were legit high quality big heavyweights.


harry wills 6'4 220lb - langford had no trouble reaching his chin

sam mcvey 5'10 212lb


also there were other quality big heavies he beat like

226lb battling jim johnson

6'7 226lb bill tate- tate was a foot taller than langford, yet the well past his prime langford gave tate a even fight.



so its proved he wouldnt have trouble with the bigger modern heavies. one of the reasons why he could deal with them despite the huge size advantage is langford was built like a heavyweight physically. he had a 73 " reach VERY LONG FOR A 5'7 man. he also had a 17” neck, 15” biceps, a 43” inch chest.


Nat Fleischer said “Langford was as quick and slippery as an eel in action, highly intelligent and made up of surprising dodges from head to heels. Sam used his bulky shoulders and clever blocking arms to avoid blows and his potent punching power stayed with him until the end of his career.”



- langford simply was just the complete fighting package for a heavyweight. he was one of the best all around heavyweights of all time.

he had the punching power of a much bigger man. wills who suffered only 3 KOs of his career, 2 to langford said he didnt even remember being knocked out by langford thats how hard he hit.





perhaps its the fact that langford was so dominant in other divisions that we forget how good he was at heavyweight.






next time i here people listing the great heavyweights, i expect sam langford's name mentioned. i rate him 18th myself and he most likely deserves a higher rating.









http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/langford3.jpg









how do u guys rate him??


how do u think he would do in heavyweight fantasy matchups?

[Rory McCloskey]

i find it hard to rate him.. we all know he was good..we just know it. but we havent really seen anythign other then him fighting fireman flynn.. his biggest fights came at middleweight i beleive.. i think top 25 is a good debate. now if ur talking middleweight or light heavyweight its different. but heavyweight he was as successful. would his p4p skill help his heavyweight rankings?, just knowing that he was a great fighter?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Langford usually lost to larger fighters, like Fred Fulton

langford was old and shot when he lost to fulton. a prime langford knocks out fulton, quite easily in fact.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I rank Langford #25 at heavyweight, and I think that 's too high. Langford usually lost to larger fighters, like Fred Fulton. Why should I expect that he'd beat a modern heavyweight like Lennox Lewis, or even Vitali Klitschko? Or, shudder, even Nicolai Valuev?

nicolay valuev?? he wouldnt be able to handle tommy burns let alone sam langford


- langford did not usually lose to large fighters until he was well past his prime. check out the factss



was vitali klitschko better than joe jeanette, sam macvey, harry wills??

was vitali k anything more than an overated clumsy uncoordianted giant whose best win was over a fat out of shape kirk johnson

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I'd argue that Langford was still in his prime when he fought Fulton.

no way langford was in his prime when he fougth fulton. he had defintley aged and slipped after 1913.


prime langford easy KO over fulton

[e.c.flurry]

i am really having trouble finding any detailed information about langford ive heard he is a great fighter and if u guys could tell me what weight he started and what weight he spent most time career defining fights

its not the only old timer im having problems since does news paper decision confusme (and i dont really have that much time get info)

i did read somewhere that he continued fighting till he was partially blind and still gave openents problem

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I'd argue that Langford was still in his prime when he fought Fulton.

no way langford was in his prime when he fougth fulton. he had defintley aged and slipped after 1913.


prime langford easy KO over fulton

1913? That's a bit early. He wasn't a full heavyweight until 1912 or so. He weighed 155 for his 1910 fight with Jim Flynn. Langford's career in itself is very hard to judge. Pound-for-pound, he was at his best at 1905, but as an actual fighter, he hit his peak in 1912 or so. Langford held the Colored Heavyweight Championship until 1918.

please, in 1909-1913 langford was feasting on jeanette, mcvey, and after 1913 a past his prime langford knocked out harry wills.


no langford started to reach 200lb in 1914 which was too heavy for him. his best fighting weight for heavyweight was 185lb he had more speed.

in 1913 he was 30 and started showing signs of aging when he lost to gunboat smith, then in 1914 lost to JEFF CLARK. it was then clear he started slipping when he lost to joe jeanette(whom he beat 3 times in 1911) and then langford started to lose or go even with sam mcvey(whom langford destroyed 1909-1912). he also lost to big tate in 1916, a man he would have toyed with 5 years earlier.

langfrord as great as he was and despite past his prime, still had enought to knock out a prime harry wills twice.


when langford fought fulton, it was 1917 and langford was 35 years old and clearly not at his fighting best. just ask historians, read the newspaper accounts and check his record.

- still even a well past his prime langford was legit contender so thats why he was feared by dempsey. langford by 1919 had a lot of ring expeirence and was a veteran of tricks, but had clearly totally slowed down.




if u really think fulton beat a prime langford, then u might as well rank fulton in ur top 20 heavyweights of all time.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Very few observers of that era would say that Sam Langford was past his prime in 1913.

i disagree,

langford started to lose alot after 1913, and even if he wasnt,

he was defintley past his prime in 1917 at 35 years old vs fred fulton! not many fighters are in there prime at 35, and langford is not one of those exceptions!


if u really think fulton beat a prime langford, then either ur a fulton nuthugger or your on drugs!



explain to me why in 1910 and 11 (when jeaneete and mcvey were in there primes) langford was beating the shit out of them every match, then suddenly in 1914 on he started to lose to them often.

- langord losing to jeff clark, gunboat smith, and big tate were all that needed to show u langford was on the downcline.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

in 1919 when kearns turned down langford because he feared sam, langford was 36 and starting to go blind!

just because he was a top contender in 1919 doest mean he was in his prime, it should show u how great sam was a fighter to be 36 and blind and still beat top contenders.


its quite clear if dempsey had taken that match thoug he would have beat the old past his prime blinding langford to a bloody pulp which would have not been a good even to see.



perhaps sams prime was until the end of 1914 but certainly nothing more after that!

[Cojimar 1945]

I believe Langford never beat Wills after Wills turned 27. His last victory of Wills was apparently in 1916.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

he was downhill before the fulton fight. look at how he was struggling and losing to guys he was destroying 5 years ealrier


- fulton beat a 35 year old past his prime langford. simple as that



prime for prime



langford KO 5 fulton

[Ambling Alp]

Langford was certainly on of the top 25 heavyweights of all time. Some people don't rate him very high (or at all) because they aren't familiar with him. A lot of people here do seem to be aware of him and many rate him very high on pound for pound lists.
He was on the downside when he fought Fulton. He was starting to get old and had 200 fights by then. aHer would have beaten beaten Fulton if he was a few years younger.
As for Dempsey not wanting to fight Lanfgord in 1917, that may have been because Dempsey was just coming into his own as a fighter at that time and he didn't think he was quite ready for Langford. A 1917 fight between Lanford and Dempsey would have been between one fighter who was a little past his prime and another who hadn't quite reached it. It may have been an interesting fight nonetheless.

[Cojimar 1945]

Brockton, I thought Langford first fought Wills in 1914.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Brockton, I thought Langford first fought Wills in 1914.

yes he did and notice how langford gets te better of wills in there early matches but then wills takes over as langford starts to get old.

[Collins2000]

Brockton, I thought Langford first fought Wills in 1914.

yes he did and notice how langford gets te better of wills in there early matches but then wills takes over as langford starts to get old.

I wouldn't know, mate. Which Langford fights do you have footage of? Any of them complete?

And where's Rory? Maybe he took my advise and got himself a woman. I can picture him now drinking deeply at the fountain of lust. Fair filling his boots, I'll warrant.

[silkov]

he was downhill before the fulton fight. look at how he was struggling and losing to guys he was destroying 5 years ealrier


- fulton beat a 35 year old past his prime langford. simple as that



prime for prime



langford KO 5 fulton

How do you know? were you there???.... the Langford of 1916 would still have beaten Dempsey... if he was so past it why was Dempsey afraid of fighting him still?...

[silkov]

Brockton, I thought Langford first fought Wills in 1914.

yes he did and notice how langford gets te better of wills in there early matches but then wills takes over as langford starts to get old.

I wouldn't know, mate. Which Langford fights do you have footage of? Any of them complete?

And where's Rory? Maybe he took my advise and got himself a woman. I can picture him now drinking deeply at the fountain of lust. Fair filling his boots, I'll warrant.

You're a bad influence :x taking Rory away from his studies of boxing and encouraging him to chase after the harlots of the night!. 8) ... many a great boxing historian has been derailed by women! 8)

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

dont worry, I get plenty of action from my girl, i manage my time accordingly :P



collins, I have seen langford in flynn II and lang fights.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

he was downhill before the fulton fight. look at how he was struggling and losing to guys he was destroying 5 years ealrier


- fulton beat a 35 year old past his prime langford. simple as that



prime for prime



langford KO 5 fulton

How do you know? were you there???.... the Langford of 1916 would still have beaten Dempsey... if he was so past it why was Dempsey afraid of fighting him still?...

yes 1916 he would have beat the green dempsey. but on dempseys best day(even though dempsey says otherwise) i think dempsey would have beat langford.


- langford was one of the most feared heavies in his prime and even a past is best langford was a solid fighter, but he was still very feared in late 1900s because of his rep and a good enough fighter to be compettitive with anyone at the time.

- dempsey feared him at the time because he was inexperienced while langford was was a smart veteran with a big reputation.

but what dempsey says and then does in the ring are different. dempsey said he was scared seeing the huge willard standing across the ring and thought he might be killed, but look what he did to willard.

[tonyevs]

There will be a book coming out (hopefully soon) on Sam Langford.
Be sure to keep an eye out for when Clay gets the nod...it will be worth it

[Collins2000]

dont worry, I get plenty of action from my girl, i manage my time accordingly :P



collins, I have seen langford in flynn II and lang fights.

Brocky, Do I detect a rudimentary sense of humour developing? Darwin's theory of evolution in action!



Are those films highlights or full fights? I must admit I find it hard to watch some of that very old stuff as they seem to be moving at strange speeds. They weren't really that fast were they and have now slowed down? Some kind of devolution, maybe?

The best old footage I have watched are some of the Louis fights. Lovely films and some are available in their entirety. The 1st Schmeling fight is in lovely condition, complete and a cracking good fight too.

[silkov]

he was downhill before the fulton fight. look at how he was struggling and losing to guys he was destroying 5 years ealrier


- fulton beat a 35 year old past his prime langford. simple as that



prime for prime



langford KO 5 fulton

How do you know? were you there???.... the Langford of 1916 would still have beaten Dempsey... if he was so past it why was Dempsey afraid of fighting him still?...

yes 1916 he would have beat the green dempsey. but on dempseys best day(even though dempsey says otherwise) i think dempsey would have beat langford.


- langford was one of the most feared heavies in his prime and even a past is best langford was a solid fighter, but he was still very feared in late 1900s because of his rep and a good enough fighter to be compettitive with anyone at the time.

- dempsey feared him at the time because he was inexperienced while langford was was a smart veteran with a big reputation.

but what dempsey says and then does in the ring are different. dempsey said he was scared seeing the huge willard standing across the ring and thought he might be killed, but look what he did to willard.

Williard was no Langford though and against Langford Dempsey would be fighting someone who matched him for speed and whom was stronger and had a better punch and chin... I think Langford in his prime would have koed a prime Dempsey in 5 or 6 rounds. He was a far better all round fighter.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

decagon,


i asked a knowlegable poster whos spends all his time studying the johnson and dempsey era and knows a lot about sam langford and what the papers and historians said about him

heres his opinion:

I asked : this one guy on boxrec, told me fulton beat a prime langford.
do u believe langford was in his prime vs fulton?


HE SAID : "Old Papers I have followed recognized a drop in the performances of the Black Dynamite members as a whole during 1913."

"By the time Langford fought Fulton he was an aging fighter having weight problems, but still very much a powerhouse. Fulton outboxed Sam over 7. Langford then quit before the 8th due to a sustained eye injury.

He was basically half blind and his career went sharply downhill after the fight.

It was a good win and one that greatly added to Fulton's already decent pedigree, but Langford was not at his best by a quite a few years."





so it seems to me even though it wasnt a prime langford, he was still a quality top fighter and it took a good man to beat him.

it also look like i was right about him slipping after 1913.

[Cap]

Langford who was actually somewhere between 5' 8" and 5' 9" fought the 6' 4" Fred Fulton in Boston and got thumbed by the bigger man fairly early on. Langford hung in until forced to quit in the 7th after taking heavy punishment from the hard-hitting giant.

Cap

[Cojimar 1945]

Fulton was apparently 6' 4 1/2 while Langford was 5' 7 1/2-5' 8.