Burns and Langford ranking in their division

[cfang]

Occurs to me that both these fighters as they fought in the heavyweight division are classed on all time lists as heavys. However, burns should be ranked as a lt heavy and langford a middle. Sam only really put on weight when he was older but at the time he fought ketchel he was really a middle.

So all time lt heavy list, where does burns rank? Where does Langford rank at middle?

[Ambling Alp II]

I did a light heavyweight ranking awhile back. I had Langford at #5 and Burns at #20.

You really can't pigieon hole Langford at one weight class. Most of the time we don't know what he weighed. He had a fight in 1907 where he weighed 154 and one in 1908 where he weighed 175.
He had more fights against notable opponents at light heavy and heavy than middleweight.
Had he fought in a later era he probably could have won titles at 154, 160, 168, 175, cruiser and heavyweight.

Burns was a middleweight in the first part of his career. He then moved up to win the heavyweight title even though he really was a light heavyweight himself.

It's too bad they never fought each other.

[BitPlayer]

Tommy Burns may not have been a natural heavyweight, but he done way more at that than any other division.

He never fought at Light Heavyweight to my knowledge.

[Ambling Alp II]

I can't speak for cflang, but I was just going by his weight and the weight of his opponents. While weighing 175, he was able to defeat the heavyweight champion. Also while weighing 175, he was able to defeat light heavyweight champion, Philadelphia Jack O"Brien, who won the light heavyweight champion,

Had the circumstances been different (more quality heavyweights around 200 pounds and more prestige at light heavy) Burns and O'Brien probably would have focused on the light heavyweight title. Burns would probably be regarded as a light heavyweight and possibly one of the best.