Sam Langford underated as a heavyweight?

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 07 Dec 2005, 07:10

i don't think langford had a better chin than dempsey,or hit as hard.dempsey by mid round ko.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 07 Dec 2005, 08:43

i think dempsey is def. a better HEAVYWEIGHT then sam langford.. i think his left hook and his chin and his stamina alone win him this fight. Dempsey KO Langord in 7 rounds

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 07 Dec 2005, 11:20

Rory McCloskey wrote:i think dempsey is def. a better HEAVYWEIGHT then sam langford.. i think his left hook and his chin and his stamina alone win him this fight. Dempsey KO Langord in 7 rounds

Where is the evidence that Dempsey had a better chin than Langford?... Dempsey was hurt badly and koed a few times, Langford had an iron chin and fought the best without being koed in his prime. Langford had better power and stronger stamina too...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 07 Dec 2005, 11:34

silkov wrote:
Rory McCloskey wrote:i think dempsey is def. a better HEAVYWEIGHT then sam langford.. i think his left hook and his chin and his stamina alone win him this fight. Dempsey KO Langord in 7 rounds
Where is the evidence that Dempsey had a better chin than Langford?... Dempsey was hurt badly and koed a few times, Langford had an iron chin and fought the best without being koed in his prime. Langford had better power and stronger stamina too...

And did Dempsey ever get KOd in his prime? I don't think anyone really knows who had a better chin, but I don't recall Dempsey ever getting KOd while he was in his prime, or any other KO loss besides the Flynn fight when he was 22yo.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 07 Dec 2005, 11:37

silkov wrote:
Rory McCloskey wrote:i think dempsey is def. a better HEAVYWEIGHT then sam langford.. i think his left hook and his chin and his stamina alone win him this fight. Dempsey KO Langord in 7 rounds
Where is the evidence that Dempsey had a better chin than Langford?... Dempsey was hurt badly and koed a few times, Langford had an iron chin and fought the best without being koed in his prime. Langford had better power and stronger stamina too...

when was dempsey ko'd in his prime?in fact take out the very fishy flynn fight and when was he ko'd period?langford hit the deck a fair bit at heavyweight too,so to say he is more durable is nonesense.on the power debate,what makes you think he hit harder than jack?please give us the evidence.lol.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 07 Dec 2005, 15:19

Decagon wrote:The difficulty in comparing Dempsey to Langford was that they were from different eras. There's a bigger difference in the boxing scene between 1915 and 1925 than there is between 1935 and 1985. The Walker Law and the move towards 10- to 15-round fights changed the way boxing was fought. The way Langford trained and fought was that he might be in a 6-round fight, or he might be in a 45-round fight. Dempsey was a specialist in the 15-round fight.

With 15-round fights, you saw better combination punching because the fighters didn't have to conserve their energy in case the bout went to 30 rounds. It was a totally different era, that Dempsey himself really began. In a 40-round fight, I might go with Langford, because Dempsey never fought one. Other than that, Dempsey's the man.

Langford was a special fighter. He was a beast in his prime. Dempsey was not a 15 round speicalists. Many of his fights were of the 10 round version. This allowed Dempsey to start fast, and have something left at the end.

Cap · Post by **Cap** » 07 Dec 2005, 20:02

Bottom line, when given a chance to fight Langford, who was on the downslide at the time, Dempsey turned him down. A win over Langford would have done wonders for Jack's rep, but he chose to fight aging White Hopes instead until 1918. Langford still had the cunning and power in his fists to kayo Dempsey in 1916.

Cap

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 08 Dec 2005, 05:34

I read an interview ith Dempsey in which he said that he'd never fight Langford becaue he was scared of him. Jack had an awful lot of respect for Sam and it seemed that the statement was made out fo respect for the man more than anythign else.

I can't say for sure who would win as I haven't seen enough footage of Sam. In 15 rounds I'd go for Dempsey, but what do i know.

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 16 Dec 2005, 00:06

Langford's eye problems actually began back in 1905 when he sustained a dreadful eye injury against Joe Jeanette. He had to quit on his stool that nigh, very similarly to the Fulton fight. Fulton handled Langford pretty easily until old Sam quit with his re-injured eye, but Tham was past it in 1917. IMO, Langford's prime was from 1907-1914. He lost only two official bouts during that time, to Gunboat Smith and Sam McVey, he defeated both in rematches handily(taking a decision from McVey, stopping him in 11 rounds and KOing him in 13. Smith got starched in 3 rounds).

What made Sam special was that he remained very dangerous after his prime ended. Hell, for another seven years he was still pretty well feared. Not at his best mind you, fat, going blind, and fairly well punched out, he was still knocking heavyweights dead late in his career.

Langford, IMO is one of the three greatest pound for pound fighters that we have ever had--and I could make a very strong argument that he was number one. However, to rank him as a heavyweight is difficult, because his prime did not exactly coincided with him being a full fledged(really a blown up) heavyweight. He had some impressive wins at the heavier weights. He demonstrated that he could be a man much larger than himself, even one of good and near great skill. Before we state that Langford could not last with today's supposed giants, let us remember that Harry Wills was 6'3" and weighed in his prime 217 pounds. That is not a small heavyweight. Sam starched him a few times. But again, it is not at heavyweight that Sam did his best work. I would rank him as a middleweight and lightheavyweight. At those weights I would match him up against anyone you care to name.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Dec 2005, 03:20

Decagon wrote:Oh, definitely his prime as a pound-for-pound fighter ended by 1914, but what about his prime as a heavyweight? He was surely just as effective against heavyweights in 1916 as he was in 1906.

disagree,

langfords heavyweight prime ended in 1914, why do u think him and mcvey started losing to wills alot when they had gotten the better of him earlier??

a prime 1912 langford tears apart fred fulton with ease. fulton DID NOT beat the best heavyweight version of langford.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Dec 2005, 05:25

I have complete respect for Langford's record and legacy and yes he is a P4P great. BUT how would he do against say Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe, two huge champions? If we think of Sam as a MW and bring that argument up to date then could Hopkins have moved up and beat Vitali?

I'd like to think that Langford could at least hold his own but logically it seems impossible. This makes the wins over Wills (though Wills probably wasn't in his prime when he lost those fights) even more amazing.

What does everyone think?

barry · Post by **barry** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:03

>>>When has Langford ever beaten a man of Fulton's or Lewis's or Bowe's size?<<<

“Big” Bill Tate—6’ 6”—230
Andre Anderson—230lbs, don’t recall his exact height, but it 6+ feet
Harry Wills—6’ 3”--215
Sandy Ferguson--6'3" around 220lbs
Bob Armstrong---6' 3"—215
“Battling” Jim Johnson—6’ 3”—220
“Tiny” Jim Herman---I think he was around 6’4”
George Godfrey—6’ 3”--230

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:11

Another thing to consider is that Toney is a blownup MW, and he seems to be pretty good against these big guys today. In my mind it's not a stretch to see Toney beating someone like Vitali, and certainly he would have a good time in the ring with Valuev, who's about 2 feet taller. Of course, they probably both weigh about the same right now...

barry · Post by **barry** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:14

James Toney is a great example...though Langford hit a hell of a lot harder than Toney ever did.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:28

Can anyone think of a MW since Langford who KO'd top HW's? I guess Ezzard Charles was a MW for a while. But even someone like Foster or Spinks who could both really punch at LH didn't seem to be able to really KO contenders at HW.

So are there any you guys can think of? If not then are we to think that l;angford was a sort of freak one off kind of guy?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:30

Mickey Walker?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:30

Oh, and didn't Toney KO Holyfield when he was still ranked?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:34

Toney's KO isn't quite the same. But, yes, he did do it.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:40

Ezzard wrote:Toney's KO isn't quite the same. But, yes, he did do it.

Not good enough, eh? How about Jimmy Ellis?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 12:55

Ezzard wrote:Can anyone think of a MW since Langford who KO'd top HW's? I guess Ezzard Charles was a MW for a while. But even someone like Foster or Spinks who could both really punch at LH didn't seem to be able to really KO contenders at HW.

So are there any you guys can think of? If not then are we to think that l;angford was a sort of freak one off kind of guy?

Didn't Mike Spinks KO Cooney and Tangstad?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Dec 2005, 13:12

The Great John L wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Can anyone think of a MW since Langford who KO'd top HW's? I guess Ezzard Charles was a MW for a while. But even someone like Foster or Spinks who could both really punch at LH didn't seem to be able to really KO contenders at HW.

So are there any you guys can think of? If not then are we to think that l;angford was a sort of freak one off kind of guy?
Didn't Mike Spinks KO Cooney and Tangstad?

Cooney was a shell of the fighter he had been and KO'ing Tangsted doesn't quite match up with stopping Harry Wills. He did stop them though.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 13:37

Ezzard wrote:Cooney was a shell of the fighter he had been and KO'ing Tangsted doesn't quite match up with stopping Harry Wills. He did stop them though.

Cooney was still pretty highly regarded, was very large, and wasn't really any more inactive than you're typical current HW title claimant. And I might add that stopping any currently active HW doesn't really compare to stopping Harry Wills.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 16 Dec 2005, 13:43

The Great John L wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Cooney was a shell of the fighter he had been and KO'ing Tangsted doesn't quite match up with stopping Harry Wills. He did stop them though.
Cooney was still pretty highly regarded, was very large, and wasn't really any more inactive than you're typical current HW title claimant. And I might add that stopping any currently active HW doesn't really compare to stopping Harry Wills.

Hmm... I'm not sure Cooney was highly regarded. he was thougth to have still ahd a punch and his name still sold but he wasn't really a force in the division.

You're right about Wills... So if the current crop of HWs are so poor why aren't we seeing more Toney's etc trying to take on these big lumbering oafs?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 16 Dec 2005, 14:00

Ezzard wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Cooney was a shell of the fighter he had been and KO'ing Tangsted doesn't quite match up with stopping Harry Wills. He did stop them though.
Cooney was still pretty highly regarded, was very large, and wasn't really any more inactive than you're typical current HW title claimant. And I might add that stopping any currently active HW doesn't really compare to stopping Harry Wills.
Hmm... I'm not sure Cooney was highly regarded. he was thougth to have still ahd a punch and his name still sold but he wasn't really a force in the division.

You're right about Wills... So if the current crop of HWs are so poor why aren't we seeing more Toney's etc trying to take on these big lumbering oafs?

Ahem, maybe because there aren't anymore Toney's around today. JT has a very unique set of skills which makes him very difficult for a HW to handle. Obviously it takes a certain style to be able to overcome a MUCH larger fighter, and JT seems to have what it takes.

I think RJJ may be the only other recent fighter who made waves at 160 and could handle HW's. True his only victory at HW was against the limited Ruiz, but it's no stretch to imagine him handling many of the other "top" HW's today. In fact, I think his place in history would have ended up being better if he had remained at HW and beaten a few of these stiffs. Of course, he may have gotten knocked off along the way, but not many would hold it against him if he lost to a 240 lb fighter. Certainly wouldn't have tarnished the rep as badly as his outings against Tarver and Johnson have.

I'm not convinced that the talent at other weights is really very good right now either. Probably better than at HW, but in general the popularity of boxing is dropping at an alarming rate, and with the lack of (and shrinking number of) gyms and trainers, it's unlikely to get better.

barry · Post by **barry** » 16 Dec 2005, 14:25

The only way that I see that it could get better is to elminate several weight classes and kill off all the alphabet soup titles and having only one champion per division, but thats not going to happen, so boxing will continue to gradually die little by little until it is nothing but a memory.