Sam Langford underated as a heavyweight?
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 21:02
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?
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?
8)
