Where would you rate Sam Langford int he ATG of HW?

[The Great John L]

As long as he's not 1 or 2 it's pretty hard to get too excited by someone having him as a top 10. I've got him in the bottom teens.

[dempseyfire]

I usually rank him as the top light heavyweight of all time, but as a HW he'd probably make the lower part of the top 20.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I usually rank him as the top light heavyweight of all time, but as a HW he'd probably make the lower part of the top 20.

More or less agree.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I usually rank him as the top light heavyweight of all time, but as a HW he'd probably make the lower part of the top 20.

I've always had a problem pinpointing Sam to a division. But I do think you can easily call him the most accomplished fighter in history. I voted 21-30, and it would be on the early end of that tier if it wasn't in yours.

[Crease]

41-50. How much did he do at Heavyweight?

[dempseyfire]

Why are you bringing up Flynn, Flynn isn't near being one of Sam's better HW opponents.

First off, Jeannette and McVey were great fighters in their own right and Sam bested them in their respective series.
WIlls also a great heavyweight and the much smaller Langford knocked him out twice.
Way past his prime he knocked out George Godfrey. Beat Kid Norfolk, Jeff Clarke, Jack Thompson, Gunboat Smith, plus capable fighters such as Bill Tate, Klondike, John Lester Johnson, Bearcat Wright etc.

That's 4 heavyweights who are in the Hall of Fame (Jeannette, McVey, Wills, Godfrey) plus one HOFer who was a light heavy cum HW in Norfolk. There are not 20 HWs in history with a better resume, let alone 40.

[perrycarter]

Also keep in mind that Langford was not at his peak when he started fighting Harry Wills. After the first four or so fights Langford was really getting long in the tooth which is why their series together is so lopsided. They started out 2-2 then the losses started piling up as Langford steadily declined.

[The Great John L]

He has a total rap sheet vs Joe Jeannette of 8 WINS 3 DRAWS 3 LOSSES
(57% pure winning percentage)

Yes and Ali has a 67% winning percentage against Norton and Frazier, 50% against Spinks and 0% against Holmes.

Of course I'm not being entirely serious here, but you can't really understand Langfords record if you are posting winning percentages. You do understand that he was often times fighting 2 or 3 times in a month against top fighters? You might also consider that many very knowledgeable people consider McVea, Jeanette, and Wills as top 20 HWs themselves.

Also, when he lost to Johnson he was fighting as a MW. Johnson would never fight him again.

There are so many names on his resume who were top HWs of the period that it's hard to list them all. Langford probably had more wins over top HWs during his career than any other HW in history, and most of his loses occurred after he was losing his sight.

And keep in mind that it's much harder to win every fight when you are fighting every 2-3 weeks and traveling by train between these fights. Ali had how long to prepare for Spinks and Norton (1st fights) and still took terrible beatings in both loses?

As I said, I have him in the bottom teens in my ratings, but you can make just as good a case for him in to be the top 5 as any other HW not named Ali or Louis. In HW rankings, there's Ali and Louis and then everybody else.

[Ezzard]

Purely by record he could be top 10. In fact, I'd say if there had been more film, and better media, he may have been the greatest ever.

If Jeanette, Wills and McVea are as good as the old scribes say then his 14 wins against them would probably trump the best 14 wins of any other HW ever.

My issue is that I can't help but a little bit sceptical... I mean how many other guys start at lightweight and end up knocking out giant, skilled Heavyweights?

Smaller guys have had success at HW but not as KO artists.

A part of me just can't truly believe it. Which probably just goes to tell you how great he really was.

Size does matter at HW (its not the end of the argument but it is salient). Because of that I probably slot Sam in at 15-20.

[The Great John L]

A part of me just can't truly believe it. Which probably just goes to tell you how great he really was.

That's what I think as well. It's not that he KO'd slugs, but he also stopped other top HWs of the era, so I would say that's enough evidence that he was something special.

Size does matter at HW (its not the end of the argument but it is salient). Because of that I probably slot Sam in at 15-20.

That's just where I have him as well, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who has him much higher.

[Ezzard]

Okay, ridiculous question but this is a Boxers of the Past forum, so anything goes...

Joe Jeanette
Hary Wills
Sam McVea

How would these guys have fared in the 1970s, 80s or 90s... Take your pick of the decades that you know best...

Could Jeanette have pulled a "Jimmy Young" on Foreman?

Could Wills have done a "Douglas" on Tyson?

Could McVea have out-Earnie'd Earnie Shavers?

[Datsue]

I would answer the OP, but as he once told me that VitKlit was a massive puncher so he was going to flatten Shannon Briggs & Sergio Martinez could not punch at all & therefore was going to lose to Paul Williams, & when I asked why he thought as he did he pointed me towards their respective KO percentages, I'm not going to. However, I will just add this, for the sake of balance:-

100%

[The Great John L]

Could Jeanette have pulled a "Jimmy Young" on Foreman?

Probably more like a better version of a Peralta performance than what Young did, although if they fought a series, George would have won a few as well. Of course there were others during the 70's that could have handled Foreman, George just didn't fight them.

Could Wills have done a "Douglas" on Tyson?

Hmmm, not sure about that one. He certainly had the height, but I don't think he was as mobile as Douglas was that night in Tokyo. I'm sure if they fought a series, Wills would have eventually figured it out, but the initial matchups would have been very difficult for him.

Could McVea have out-Earnie'd Earnie Shavers?

Well, Ron Lyle did so I would say that McVea would have had a decent shot at outlasting him.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Could Jeanette have pulled a "Jimmy Young" on Foreman?

Probably more like a better version of a Peralta performance than what Young did, although if they fought a series, George would have won a few as well. Of course there were others during the 70's that could have handled Foreman, George just didn't fight them.

Could Wills have done a "Douglas" on Tyson?

Hmmm, not sure about that one. He certainly had the height, but I don't think he was as mobile as Douglas was that night in Tokyo. I'm sure if they fought a series, Wills would have eventually figured it out, but the initial matchups would have been very difficult for him.

Could McVea have out-Earnie'd Earnie Shavers?

Well, Ron Lyle did so I would say that McVea would have had a decent shot at outlasting him.

[gilgamesh]

Is there even any footage of Sam Langford available to be seen? I mean I've read about Sam Langford and I know he was apparently one of the hardest punchers in boxing history, but how can we really rank this guy on an All time level without even seeing the guy? If there are fights of him available I'm sure there are not many, but I'd like to know which fights they are. If we're going off of what we read it's kinda ridiculous. For me to predict a fight or to rank a guy I have to have seen him and know how his style worked for him and all that. Just reading about a guy while it is fascinating and interesting to learn about these old-timers. I don't think we can fairly rank them in boxing history with such limited first-hand knowledge of their ability.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Is there even any footage of Sam Langford available to be seen? I mean I've read about Sam Langford and I know he was apparently one of the hardest punchers in boxing history, but how can we really rank this guy on an All time level without even seeing the guy? If there are fights of him available I'm sure there are not many, but I'd like to know which fights they are. If we're going off of what we read it's kinda ridiculous. For me to predict a fight or to rank a guy I have to have seen him and know how his style worked for him and all that. Just reading about a guy while it is fascinating and interesting to learn about these old-timers. I don't think we can fairly rank them in boxing history with such limited first-hand knowledge of their ability.

Going by this you shouldn't rank anyone unless you have seen every fight they had. If it is that important you can leave no stone unturned, every flaw must be dissected from their pro debut to the end of their career.

It isn't just the real old timers, there is very limited footage of fights from the 40's too. Do you rank Sugar Ray Robinson at Welterweight? There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion off of reading and results. I'm sure fans did it before the fights were even available to listen to, much less watch.

[dempseyfire]

The recently widely distributed Langford-Jeannette film is a treasure and by far the best film of Langford we have
Only several, very choppy minutes of his fight vs a rather intimidated Lang and sped up, camera-is-far-away footage vs Flynn are what we have besides that.

[Brute]

When Langford fought Jack Johnson in 1906 he was in his 20s ( there is dispute as to whether he was born in 1880 or 1883) and weighed 156 pounds.

[gilgamesh]

Is there even any footage of Sam Langford available to be seen? I mean I've read about Sam Langford and I know he was apparently one of the hardest punchers in boxing history, but how can we really rank this guy on an All time level without even seeing the guy? If there are fights of him available I'm sure there are not many, but I'd like to know which fights they are. If we're going off of what we read it's kinda ridiculous. For me to predict a fight or to rank a guy I have to have seen him and know how his style worked for him and all that. Just reading about a guy while it is fascinating and interesting to learn about these old-timers. I don't think we can fairly rank them in boxing history with such limited first-hand knowledge of their ability.

Going by this you shouldn't rank anyone unless you have seen every fight they had. If it is that important you can leave no stone unturned, every flaw must be dissected from their pro debut to the end of their career.

It isn't just the real old timers, there is very limited footage of fights from the 40's too. Do you rank Sugar Ray Robinson at Welterweight? There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion off of reading and results. I'm sure fans did it before the fights were even available to listen to, much less watch.

Fair points. I just think it would be very interesting to know how he did against a Boxer instead of a Slugger, A Southpaw instead of a Right Hander. Little things like that. Like I said I have no doubt he was a phenomenal fighter and obviously a freakishly hard puncher, and going by what I've read about him considering he was a very short guy and only weighed around 160 pounds or so, the fact that he frequently knocked out the Big name Heavyweights of his day is one of the most unbelievable accomplishments by any fighter in all of boxing history.