Sam Langford The Best Fighter Of All Time?

[cotto20]

I think Langoford may be the best. The man was a freak, he had it all. Do any people around here think sam was the best?

This article tell just how good Langford was
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[McGrain]

Yeah, I have him at #1 all time. There are other picks just as good though. Greb, Armstrong, Sugar.

[cotto20]

Yeah, I have him at #1 all time. There are other picks just as good though. Greb, Armstrong, Sugar.

interesting. So in your mind langford is the best fighter of all time? Have you read the book written on him yet? is it any good?

[Chris Warren]

How many fights of this guy has footage so you can see him in action? Not many, maybe 2 or 3 fights so you dont know how good he is. He is another one of those early fighters who career is based on hearsay. What we do know is boxers of that era wasn't as skilled as modern fighters and he fought in a era where the boxers wore alot smaller gloves.

Sam Langford is the best boxer named Sam Langford but that is about it.

[McGrain]

interesting. So in your mind langford is the best fighter of all time? Have you read the book written on him yet? is it any good?

Yeah, in my mind he's the best fighter of all time.

The book is excellent, a really good read.

[cotto20]

How many fights of this guy has footage so you can see him in action? Not many, maybe 2 or 3 fights so you dont know how good he is. He is another one of those early fighters who career is based on hearsay. What we do know is boxers of that era wasn't as skilled as modern fighters and he fought in a era where the boxers wore alot smaller gloves.

Sam Langford is the best boxer named Sam Langford but that is about it.

For a start that made no sense, and langford career isnt just based of ''hearsay'' you idiot!

[cotto20]

Yeah, in my mind he's the best fighter of all time.

The book is excellent, a really good read.

been wanting to get the book for ages! what other boxing books do you reccomend?

[McGrain]

been wanting to get the book for ages! what other boxing books do you reccomend?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Flea Man]

For a start that made no sense, and langford career isnt just based of ''hearsay'' you idiot!

I happen to think not seeing a substantial amount of footage on a fighter is as good a cause for not rating them as any.

However, there is a small amount of footage on Langford, and I think he would've been a success(to some extent) at any time in history.

I'm not one of these that give him the nod against ATG heavys such as Ali and Foreman, nor do I think he could take down the likes of Foster and Spinks at LHW. Maybe I'd change my mind if I'd seen a massive amount of footage, but I don't gauge fighters on how good they might be based on newspaper reports.

Only my opinion, others share it but it doesn't mean I don't look upon guys like Langford and Greb unfavourably or not enjoy dicussing them.

[cotto20]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

interesting, how good is the corbett book?

[McGrain]

interesting, how good is the corbett book?

Brilliant. It's only interested in the fights though, so if you're looking for something a little fleshier look elsewhere. It's one of the best of it's kind though.

[cotto20]

Brilliant. It's only interested in the fights though, so if you're looking for something a little fleshier look elsewhere. It's one of the best of it's kind though.

so dosent it tell you much about corbett as a person? just mainly takes you through his fights?

[McGrain]

Yeah. In great detail. Invaluable given there is no footage of many of these fights.

[cotto20]

Yeah. In great detail. Invaluable given there is no footage of many of these fights.

interesting. What exactly is dark trade about?

[McGrain]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[cotto20]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

sounds good, is it a better read than langfords?

[McGrain]

Very different.

[JudgeDredd]

I think Langoford may be the best. The man was a freak, he had it all. Do any people around here think sam was the best?

This article tell just how good Langford was
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Thanks for the link, was a good read :thumbsup

[cotto20]

Very different.

What are your reasons for Langoford being better than the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, Greb etc?

[McGrain]

What are your reasons for Langoford being better than the likes of Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, Greb etc?

Well obviously that's an enormous question with a massive answer, but to keep it short and sweet -

He beat Gans at 140 and Harry Wills at HW, with greats for every weight division in between. His achievments are so deep in terms of weight class that they render the term "pound for pound" almost meaningless...Sam beat a fighter with a claim for the #1 spot at lightweight and a fighter with a claim for a top 10 spot at HW (I rank Wills #10).

In terms of success throughout weight classes nobody else really comes close, and only Greb keeps him company. Meanwhile he's got more greats on his ledger than most. He's a monster.

[cotto20]

Well obviously that's an enormous question with a massive answer, but to keep it short and sweet -

He beat Gans at 140 and Harry Wills at HW, with greats for every weight division in between. His achievments are so deep in terms of weight class that they render the term "pound for pound" almost meaningless...Sam beat a fighter with a claim for the #1 spot at lightweight and a fighter with a claim for a top 10 spot at HW (I rank Wills #10).

In terms of success throughout weight classes nobody else really comes close, and only Greb keeps him company. Meanwhile he's got more greats on his ledger than most. He's a monster.

wow, nice post! there are many different reports, what did your hear about the ketchel vs langford fight was like. i heard sam took it easy, but then i hear they had a tear up.

[McGrain]

wow, nice post! there are many different reports, what did your hear about the ketchel vs langford fight was like. i heard sam took it easy, but then i hear they had a tear up.

The story I got was that Langford was in line for a shot at Ketchel's title over 20 rounds, and that he knew he couldn't KO or beat up Ketchel putting that fight in jeopardy. Having said that, I do think Ketchel was an extraordinary fighter.

[cotto20]

The story I got was that Langford was in line for a shot at Ketchel's title over 20 rounds, and that he knew he couldn't KO or beat up Ketchel putting that fight in jeopardy. Having said that, I do think Ketchel was an extraordinary fighter.

i agree

[cotto20]

It just amazes me, if given the chances Langford may have been champion from Lightweight to Heavyweight. In his prime some say he was the perfect fighting machine.

[Sweet Pea]

Nah, not really. He fought the same fighters over and over and over and over. Harry Greb's resume is infinitely better and deeper.

[McGrain]

Greb's resume is infinitely better and deeper.


Fuck off.

[cotto20]

Nah, not really. He fought the same fighters over and over and over and over. Harry Greb's resume is infinitely better and deeper.

You dont know anything about boxing history, he fought the same fighters over again, because he had to. because no one would fight him.

langford's resume is just as good as greb's.

[Seamus]

Sam is certainly in the conversation. The book to which everyone alludes should not be your only source on Sam. It does tend to glorify and give the benefit of the doubt to Sam in all situations. That said, it's a good read. I would just try to do your own research to give it some perspective.

[Sweet Pea]

Fuck off.Don't get me wrong, it's a great resume, just nowhere near as deep as I once thought. He has some top names on there, but for the most part he just fought the same men again and again. I was really surprised when I tried to do his part on Manassa's "Records" thread.

[McGrain]

Don't get me wrong, it's a great resume, just nowhere near as deep as I once thought. He has some top names on there, but for the most part he just fought the same men again and again. I was really surprised when I tried to do his part on Manassa's "Records" thread.


I hear you, but your post implies that there is distance between the warm bodies on their resumes. That's bullshit. The second string (by which I mean excellent rather than great) fighters are where Greb excells. And the best 10 wins by either man? All ten would probably be Langford in real terms and he's got the best p4p wins in my view, also, though that is closer.

There canon of wins are comparable and close.

[Sweet Pea]

You dont know anything about boxing history, he fought the same fighters over again, because he had to. because no one would fight him.

langford's resume is just as good as greb's.Yeah, all of those debates where I tore you a new asshole (you must have about 5 unneccessary gaping holes in your body by now) really exposed my lack of boxing knowledge. Why not try backing any of your arguments up with something? Anything? Ever?

I understand the circumstances of Langford's career, I've heard and read them countless times. I find it both humorous and annoying that a little second rate chicken shit like you thinks he can teach me anything, when you've clearly already exposed your stupidity to myself and many other forum members.

Anyways, I was simply saying his resume is nowhere near as deep as seems to be the common perception. He beat roughly 15-16 very good to great fighters in his 300 some odd fight career. I didn't say that he as a fighter should rate especially lower, because his accomplishments as they stand are still pretty spectacular. I certainly don't think he was the best of all time, though.

[cotto20]

Yeah, all of those debates where I tore you a new asshole (you must have about 5 unneccessary gaping holes in your body by now) really exposed my lack of boxing knowledge. Why not try backing any of your arguments up with something? Anything? Ever?

I understand the circumstances of Langford's career, I've heard and read them countless times. I find it both humorous and annoying that a little second rate chicken shit like you thinks he can teach me anything, when you've clearly already exposed your stupidity to myself and many other forum members.

Anyways, I was simply saying his resume is nowhere near as deep as seems to be the common perception. He beat roughly 15-16 very good to great fighters in his 300 some odd fight career. I didn't say that he as a fighter should rate especially lower, because his accomplishments as they stand are still pretty spectacular. I certainly don't think he was the best of all time, though.

Once again, you continue to make a fool of yourself around here. i feel sorry for you on here and the way you look, it's looks to me like a blow of wind could push you over, go and get down a gym, coward!

[Sweet Pea]

Make that 6 holes.

[essexboy]

Nah, not really. He fought the same fighters over and over and over and over. Harry Greb's resume is infinitely better and deeper.

You dont know anything about boxing history, he fought the same fighters over again, because he had to. because no one would fight him.

langford's resume is just as good as greb's.

Well he did fight the same boxers often but from what I can see he fought eleven hall of famers in his career, Gans, Walcott, Jeanette, Johnson, Ketchel, McVea, O'Brien, Wills, Norfolk, Godfrey and Flowers over a host of varying weights. Beating eight of them, Gans, Jeanette, McVea, O'Brien, Wills, Norfolk, Godfrey and Flowers. Not bad for a guy who fought the same opponents over and over again I'm sure you'll agree.

[Rock0052]

Once again, you continue to make a fool of yourself around here. i feel sorry for you on here and the way you look, it's looks to me like a blow of wind could push you over, go and get down a gym, coward!

He's got you on this one.

While Langford's accomplishments are great, he doesn't have the depth and variety of quality on his resume that Greb does.

Does it mean Langford fought only bums? Absolutely not.
Does it mean there's not a great list of wins there? Absolutely not.
Is it Sam's fault it's not deeper? Probably not, I'd wager, given the circumstances of the time.

But one doesn't have to believe any of that to still think Greb's resume is superior by a noticeable margin. I happen to hold that opinion myself. I've noticed when the color line is drawn, it's usually only the white fighters' rep that suffers, but in reality, the perception of the black fighter's resume should suffer just as much from the unanswered questions of not fighting the absolute best from both sides of the line, even though it's not their fault. It's still something that shouldn't go ignored in a historical context, but routinely does.

With Greb, that's not an issue because the man did fight everybody, and fought excellent fighters more routinely than Sam did.

[Bokaj]

But one doesn't have to believe any of that to still think Greb's resume is superior by a noticeable margin. I happen to hold that opinion myself. I've noticed when the color line is drawn, it's usually only the white fighters' rep that suffers, but in reality, the perception of the black fighter's resume should suffer just as much from the unanswered questions of not fighting the absolute best from both sides of the line, even though it's not their fault. It's still something that shouldn't go ignored in a historical context, but routinely does.

Good point.

[McGrain]

But one doesn't have to believe any of that to still think Greb's resume is superior by a noticeable margin.

Which heavyweights did Greb beat that are better than Hary Wills, Sam McVea and Joe Jeannette?

In real terms, Langford beat better fighters. He also turned pro at a lower rate. But Greb's resume is "superior by a noticable margin"?

[Sweet Pea]

Langford was a naturally larger man (regardless of his starting weight at 17 years old) and a much bigger puncher than Greb, so it's only logical that he'd be more successful against Heavyweights. Greb never got his chance to face Dempsey, so I guess we'll never really know how well he could've fared against the best Heavies. We do know that Langford lost far more often than not to Wills, though.

[McGrain]

Langford was a naturally larger man (regardless of his starting weight at 17 years old) and a much bigger puncher than Greb, so it's only logical that he'd be more successful against Heavyweights. Greb never got his chance to face Dempsey, so I guess we'll never really know how well he could've fared against the best Heavies. We do know that Langford lost far more often than not to Wills, though.

It's ridiculous to raise Dempsey's ducking of Greb in relation to his HW resume. Langford was by far the more ducked fighter. It's not close.

As for Langford's natural size, so what? Both were active in the HW division, Langford has the better wins. Whatever your thoughts, the facts are that Langford has great results in a lower weight division than Greb and better wins at HW. Those are the facts.

[Sweet Pea]

It's ridiculous to raise Dempsey's ducking of Greb in relation to his HW resume. Langford was by far the more ducked fighter. It's not close.OK. You're making an entirely new debate out of a minor point in my post. I wasn't arguing this.

As for Langford's natural size, so what? Both were active in the HW division, Langford has the better wins.Yes, that makes him a better HW, which noone disputed in the first place.

Whatever your thoughts, the facts are that Langford has great results in a lower weight division than Greb and better wins at HW. Those are the facts.And Greb has a far higher quantity of great results than Langford has at any weight or any combination of weights. More facts.

[McGrain]

OK. You're making an entirely new debate out of a minor point in my post. I wasn't arguing this.

I'm just saying, implying that if Greb wasn't ducked we'd know more about his abilities at HW seems a little disengenuos given Langford's trouble.

Yes, that makes him a better HW, which noone disputed in the first place.

But what this proves is that Langford has the best wins in REAL TERMS (not pound for pound). Langford has the best wins and people are trying to infer that there is this big gap between their resumes. It's utter shite.

And Greb has a far higher quantity of great results than Langford has at any weight or any combination of weights. More facts.

But these facts are dependent upon an individual's cut-off point as regards what equals "great results". Yours is consistantly lower than mine. The facts I presented are facts, regardless of individual perspective (though I'm sure we can find someone who is going to tell us that Gibbons is better than Jeanette).

[Sweet Pea]

I'm just saying, implying that if Greb wasn't ducked we'd know more about his abilities at HW seems a little disengenuos given Langford's trouble.Not really. Langford was actually able to test himself against one of the best HW's of the era in Harry Wills many, many times. Far more often than not he came up short, which is understandable given the size difference, but it still gives a real measure of his HW standing. We never really got to see how Greb would've fared against similar opposition. That's my point.

But what this proves is that Langford has the best wins in REAL TERMS (not pound for pound). Langford has the best wins and people are trying to infer that there is this big gap between their resumes. It's utter shite.Langford has the best "real" wins because he was the naturally larger man and the far bigger puncher, much better equipped to take on heavier fighters. Again, that is only logical. With everything taken into consideration, I believe the Greb's series against Tunney is more impressive in an overall sense than Langford's series against Wills. Would you agree?

Also, the gap between their resumes is more in terms of quantity than quality. Langford beat a fair amount of excellent fighters, and his wins at the top rival anyone's. However, Greb's record against top level opposition is much more varied and deep. It depends on what you prefer as to how you'd rate their resume's in comparison to one another.

But these facts are dependent upon an individual's cut-off point as regards what equals "great results". Yours is consistantly lower than mine. The facts I presented are facts, regardless of individual perspective (though I'm sure we can find someone who is going to tell us that Gibbons is better than Jeanette).Don't really know what you're saying here, man.

[Maxmomer]

Yes. Yes. Fuck yes.

[JudgeDredd]

Who's Sam Langford?....Kidding, enjoying the debate here, teaching me a thing or two :thumbsup

[cotto20]

McGrain has just owned Sweet Pea :lol:

[Rock0052]

Which heavyweights did Greb beat that are better than Hary Wills, Sam McVea and Joe Jeannette?

In real terms, Langford beat better fighters. He also turned pro at a lower rate. But Greb's resume is "superior by a noticable margin"?

1/3 of Sam's career was spent fighting the same 7 guys, good as they were. That makes it a bit easier to get the name on the win list. He beat an excellent caliber of fighter overall- my post wasn't meant to come off as combative or disrespectful, it's simply my opinion. In general, I still feel the black heavyweight contenders of that era get too much benefit of the doubt because of the circumstances that were against them that kept them from having more defining fights- and giving historical goodwill to their quality is certainly understandable because it wasn't fair to the sport or the men that we didn't get to see the best vs the best.

But it does hurt that we never got to see Sam try to avenge his sound defeat vs Jack Johnson, who was on another level as far as heavyweight quality went as compared to all other contenders, black or white. Sam often gets called the "uncrowned heavyweight champion", but I don't think he'd ever have beaten Johnson. He was the best of the rest of the black contenders of the day, but that's no indicator he'd have won the title. He couldn't beat Fred Fulton in 2 tries. So essentially, he was a top contender of his day. If Greb were to campaign at heavyweight, could you say you wouldn't have favored him to become a top contender, as Langford did? I don't believe it's a stretch at all when you consider Greb beat multiple men who received heavyweight title shots.

Still, that's a hypothetical on my part- the fact is Sam beat the better heavyweights. However, Greb still defeated heavyweights along with the better middleweights and light heavyweights- guys like Gibbons, Loughran, Walker, Chip, Norfolk, Tunney, Dillon and Levinsky, and with only one good eye for a substantial portion of it. Sam fought a future Heavyweight champ. He lost. So did Greb- Greb didn't. Had Sam stayed at middleweight, it's no guarantee he'd have blown through the fighters that Greb did by any means. Possible, but heavyweight success doesn't guarantee lower weight greatness if he'd campaigned there longer and gotten the best fights.

Although I'm sure a rabid dissection of this post will probably occur in the next minute or so, this breakdown isn't to discredit Sam, who certainly is an ATG. It's splitting hairs between two legendary fighters, of whom I prefer Greb's work. I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone who prefers Langford, whose a one-of-a-kind fighter. Let's put it this way- if they had full career sets for them, I'd own both fighters'. All 600 of 'em. :D:good

[McGrain]

Not really. Langford was actually able to test himself against one of the best HW's of the era in Harry Wills many, many times. Far more often than not he came up short, which is understandable given the size difference, but it still gives a real measure of his HW standing. We never really got to see how Greb would've fared against similar opposition. That's my point.

And my point is that Langford is the more ducked of the two.

Langford has the best "real" wins because he was the naturally larger man and the far bigger puncher, much better equipped to take on heavier fighters.

Much better equipped to take on heavy fighters??? Greb did astonishngly wella gainst heavier fighters because he was incredibly difficult to hit with an astonishing work-rate. This served him beautifully against the bigger men he fought. Greb is on record as stating that he prefered fighting bigger guys because they were slower. In other words, Greb seemed to feel that he was "better equipped" for fighting bigger men than smaller ones.

But again, what does any of this matter? You seem to be trying to quantify the fighter's success based upon their equipment. "He he had power so his better wins don't hold so much water", seems to be what you are inferring. None of that matters, at all.

Finally, Langford was bigger, but their best weights may both have been 175.

With everything taken into consideration, I believe the Greb's series against Tunney is more impressive in an overall sense than Langford's series against Wills. Would you agree?

Yeah, I would agree with that. But I also feel that Wills was a better fighter than Tunney. Would you agree?

Don't really know what you're saying here, man.

Your cut off point for what equals a top-line win is far lower than mine. So you will list more top line wins for Greb than I would. I wouldn't go so deep into his second string as you would when listing Greb's best wins.

In other words, the facts you preseneted are relative and objective. The ones I presented are just facts.

[janitor]

As for Langford's natural size, so what? Both were active in the HW division, Langford has the better wins.

It is hard to compare them in terms of size but I think that Langford would have been unable to make 160lbs at an earlier stage of his career than Greb.

[janitor]

1/3 of Sam's career was spent fighting the same 7 guys, good as they were. That makes it a bit easier to get the name on the win list.

Even if you only took into acount one win for every fighter Langford beat he would still be competitive with Greb in terms of depth.

[McGrain]

It is hard to compare them in terms of size but I think that Langford would have been unable to make 160lbs at an earlier stage of his career than Greb.

I agree with that.

But I also do think that it wouldn't be difficult to make the case that both were best at 175. Perhaps the easiest way to see it is to make a modern day division and say that Greb was best at 168 and Langford was best at 175.

[Sweet Pea]

Much better equipped to take on heavy fighters??? Greb did astonishngly wella gainst heavier fighters because he was incredibly difficult to hit with an astonishing work-rate. This served him beautifully against the bigger men he fought. Greb is on record as stating that he prefered fighting bigger guys because they were slower. In other words, Greb seemed to feel that he was "better equipped" for fighting bigger men than smaller ones.That means he was a phenomenal fighter, not that he was better physically equipped to deal with larger men. Yes, his style was puzzling to them, but he lacked the physical stature, strength, and power of Langford. My point is, Langford was much more naturally suited to HW, at least during that era. Greb got by on his ability rather than the combination of ability and physical stature, as Langford did.

But again, what does any of this matter? You seem to be trying to quantify the fighter's success based upon their equipment. "He he had power so his better wins don't hold so much water", seems to be what you are inferring. None of that matters, at all. No, I'm simply saying Langford was the bigger, stronger, more powerful man, one that routinely weighed in from 180-200 pounds, which was more than suitable for the HW division of the day. Greb on the other hand fought there weighing little over 165.

Finally, Langford was bigger, but their best weights may both have been 175.Their most successful divisions, arguably. But that doesn't disprove the fact that Langford was indeed the bigger fighter and would therefore be better suited to fighting at a heavier weight.

Yeah, I would agree with that. But I also feel that Wills was a better fighter than Tunney. Would you agree?Certainly not.

Your cut off point for what equals a top-line win is far lower than mine. So you will list more top line wins for Greb than I would. I wouldn't go so deep into his second string as you would when listing Greb's best wins.How do you know? I listed out neither of their resumes.

In other words, the facts you preseneted are relative and objective. The ones I presented are just facts.You can't judge a fighter's worth (or anything, really) strictly on facts. You know this as well as I.

[Flea Man]

You dont know anything about boxing history, he fought the same fighters over again, because he had to. because no one would fight him.

langford's resume is just as good as greb's.

Have you joined this site after reading 'Eastside Boxing: For Dummies'. You post like a child.

[Flea Man]

McGrain has just owned Sweet Pea :lol:

You get owned by everyone:deal

As is the benchmark, Asero would own you.

[McGrain]

No, I'm simply saying Langford was the bigger, stronger, more powerful man, one that routinely weighed in from 180-200 pounds, which was more than suitable for the HW division of the day. Greb on the other hand fought there weighing little over 165.

Langford fought Jack Johnson weighing less than the weight you've listed for Greb.

All of this talk about "equipment" is irrelevant. Langford was more powerful and bigger. Greb was faster, more difficult to hit with a better style for that weight division. What they did there is the most relevant factor. I've basically got no interest in arguing WHY they have the resumes they do in an argument about who has the better resume and I don't think that argument definitively favours Greb anyway. Both were among the best HW's of the era, both were ducked by the incumbent champion.


Certainly not.

So you think Tunney was a better HW than Wills? Where do you have them both in your list?

How do you know? I listed out neither of their resumes.

I know enough to know that, we've been talking boxing two years!

You can't judge a fighter's worth (or anything, really) strictly on facts. You know this as well as I.

True, but that facts in this discussion provide a lean towards Langford. But I have no problem with someone taking the contrary argument in support of Greb, at all, i've wavered myself a few times.

I do have a problem with the implication, made by more than one poster in this thread, including yoruself, that Greb is somehow on another level to Langford in terms of resume. That there is bullshit.

[Rock0052]

Even if you only took into acount one win for every fighter Langford beat he would still be competitive with Greb in terms of depth.

I'll respectfully disagree with you since I did that and still prefer Greb's work. :D

There's no one way to measure a resume, but for my money:
Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Chip, Levinsky, Mctigue, Dillon, Gibbons (both of them), Loughran, Miske, Rosenbloom, and Slattery, among other contenders, is a bit better overall than Langford's.

At this level, it's not about disliking one man's work because each has a hell of a case for them- it boils down to who I prefer, and in this case, it's Greb.

[frankenfrank]

langford is probably the #1 p4p.
fighting the same fighters many times is good IF they are elite fighters.
he was avoided.
as a HW i don't give him a realistic chance in modern times simply because he was far from (being a legitimate) HW.
had he not gotten fat he could have made 160 forever , but he had no reason to maintain this weight because no one wanted him at 160 after he proved himself there so he got higher for no other options.
true that it is hard to find videos of full fights of him.
based on record he is probably p4p #1.
his record (including the weights and tale of the tape thing) is much more impressing than SRR.
SRR a 5'11" who dominated the 147 and later the 160 with a few setbacks.
langford a 5'6" maybe 5'7" who was a terror at any weight maybe except HW. and langford initial weight was about SRR's.
that's p4p.

[Sweet Pea]

Langford fought Jack Johnson weighing less than the weight you've listed for Greb.This was a young, pre-prime Langford who lost handily. We're talking about the version who generally fought as a HW. That version didn't surface for a while after the Johnson bout. Let's try to stay relevant.

All of this talk about "equipment" is irrelevant.:lol:

Langford was more powerful and bigger. Greb was faster, more difficult to hit with a better style for that weight division. What they did there is the most relevant factor. I've basically got no interest in arguing WHY they have the resumes they do in an argument about who has the better resume and I don't think that argument definitively favours Greb anyway. Both were among the best HW's of the era, both were ducked by the incumbent champion.Langford was the bigger man with the better record at HW. I am not denying that. Greb has the superior record at MW and LHW, and his record at those weights is more stacked than Langford's entire career of work, even if you disagree that it involves a higher quality of opposition. I didn't state as much, either.

So you think Tunney was a better HW than Wills? Where do you have them both in your list?You said he was a better fighter. I disagree. Let's not get into semantics, because you know what I mean and I know exactly where you're going with this. I'd rather not go around in another circle. In case you haven't noticed we're not even finished with that debate yet, so why start it up again half-way through?

It's obvious we simply have differing views on Langford and Greb's natural size and/or the difference that makes in regards to their opposition. You seem to think their physical qualities are hardly an issue and therefore everything they accomplish should be completely relative. I disagree. Greb was the smaller man with the better record against men his size and an excellent one against larger men. Langford, being the larger man, naturally had the better record against larger opponents. Greb fought at HW more as a means to test himself than anything, Langford fought there because he was a HW by that point in his career. That's not taking away from his ability, those are just the facts.

I know enough to know that, we've been talking boxing two years!Why don't you list them out, then? For both men.

I do have a problem with the implication, made by more than one poster in this thread, including yoruself, that Greb is somehow on another level to Langford. That there is bullshit.I think that was taken out of context. I speak very bluntly sometimes, you know that. I simply stated that Greb had the better resume due to it's far greater depth. But again, it depends on what you prefer. Quality or quantity. I tend to think Greb's unquestionable edge in quantity outweighs Langford's arguableedge in quality.

[PowerPuncher]

When somone is put up there as P4P, I ask what he does best P4P than anyone else?

Speed?
Defense?
Jab?
Punching Technique?
Stamina/Workrate?
P4P Power?

I think Langford is lacking in a few of those areas, he was great for his time with an amazing legacy but skills developed to another level after his retirement. I'm sure he'd be a vastly improved fighter in the 40s/50s and onwards

[My2Sense]

He beat Gans at 140 and Harry Wills at HW, with greats for every weight division in between. His achievments are so deep in terms of weight class that they render the term "pound for pound" almost meaningless...Sam beat a fighter with a claim for the #1 spot at lightweight and a fighter with a claim for a top 10 spot at HW (I rank Wills #10).

In terms of success throughout weight classes nobody else really comes close, and only Greb keeps him company.

He may have had success across more weight classes than Greb and others, but he wasn't necessarily more proven or accomplished in any one of them. He moved through divisions relatively quickly until he reached HW, and he only came away with draws against the top guys at both WW (Walcott) and MW (Ketchel). He didn't clean out or dominate a division the way Greb, Armstrong, Robinson, or others have done. Moreover, Gans and Ketchel (and possibly Walcott as well) were coming up in weight to fight him, so he also wasn't fighting those guys at the weight classes in which they were rated as the best.

[McGrain]

This was a young, pre-prime Langford who lost handily. We're talking about the version who generally fought as a HW. That version didn't surface for a while after the Johnson bout. Let's try to stay relevant.

I think it's relevant to interceed in your massaging of the figures. Langford fought against HW's at a lighter weight than you are indicating and Greb fought against heavyweights at a heavier weight than you are indicating.

Regardless, it's missing the point. Langford fought (when no higher than around 180) at the best weight for his style of fighting and Greb, too, fought at the best weight for his style of fighting. Greb could have piled on weight to tackle HW's. It wouldn't have been to his benifit. Also, for the record, Langford was nothng less than fat and out of shape when he was up at 200. He was slipping and it was remarked upon when he fought up there.

Langford was the bigger man with the better record at HW. I am not denying that. Greb has the superior record at MW and LHW, and his record at those weights is more stacked than Langford's entire career of work, even if you disagree that it involves a higher quality of opposition. I didn't state as much, either.

I agree, and I do deny that it involves a higher quality of opposition. Langford beat the better fighters. Here is the basis for the case that he has the better resume. It's not a complex one, is it? If you prefer the many, many excellent wins Greb has over the superior elite wins Langford has that's fine, but suggesting there's this gulf between them is just silly. It's a matter of personal preference, at best.

You said he was a better fighter.

Yeah, better fighter. Not better fighter pound for pound, better fighter, more dangerous fighter. It's Wills. This confusion often errupts around Langford because people automatically want to talk pound for pound. Langford almost trancends the term with great wins from LWW to HW.


It's obvious we simply have differing views on Langford and Greb's natural size and/or the difference that makes in regards to their opposition. You seem to think their physical qualities are hardly an issue and therefore everything they accomplish should be completely relative. I disagree. Greb was the smaller man with the better record against men his size and an excellent one against larger men. Langford, being the larger man, naturally had the better record against larger opponents. Greb fought at HW more as a means to test himself than anything, Langford fought there because he was a HW by that point in his career. That's not taking away from his ability, those are just the facts.

Greb fought at HW because he wanted the HW title. Three titles, in fact, but the HW title was definitely the jewel in the crown.

Finally, both these men were astonishing HW's in their own right. Both were not naturals to the division. I'm all for giving credit for facing larger opponents, but do you generally provide smaller HW's with greater credit in the ATG stakes for their work against bigger men? Tyson for example, do you provide him for more credit in his achievments than Lewis, who enjoyed greater advantages over Mike in terms of size than Langford does over Greb? Both men campaigned at HW. Both were amongst the best HW's of their day. Enough said, probably.

Finally, it must be re-iterated that Langford is the "bigger man" with wins in weight divisions the limits for which Greb was never able to make. That is not to say Langford was smaller, but it is to say that Langford has success in additinal weight division to be taken into account. It is by no means a weight-weight comparison.

One of those wins is over Joe Gans.

Why don't you list them out, then? For both men.

You wouldn't like my list. Firstly, I have a far, far higher regard for wins over multiple opponents than you do. So my list of say, ten, would be made up almost entirely of great black HW's.

Greb's would also contain a number of HW's, but those HW's are not as good.

I think that was taken out of context. I speak very bluntly sometimes, you know that. I simply stated that Greb had the better resume due to it's far greater depth. But again, it depends on what you prefer. Quality or quantity. I tend to think Greb's unquestionable edge in quantity outweighs Langford's arguableedge in quality.

Fair enough. Probably the biggest difference is my admiration of Langford's multiple wins.

[janitor]

I'll respectfully disagree with you since I did that and still prefer Greb's work. :D

There's no one way to measure a resume, but for my money:
Tunney, Walker, Flowers, Chip, Levinsky, Mctigue, Dillon, Gibbons (both of them), Loughran, Miske, Rosenbloom, and Slattery, among other contenders, is a bit better overall than Langford's.

At this level, it's not about disliking one man's work because each has a hell of a case for them- it boils down to who I prefer, and in this case, it's Greb.

My only observation would be that the bar is higher for a fighter from Langfords era to gain recognition than a fighter from Greb's era.

There are a good few fighters from Langford's era who should be in the Hall of Fame who are largley forgotten even by people on this site.

[My2Sense]

The story I got was that Langford was in line for a shot at Ketchel's title over 20 rounds, and that he knew he couldn't KO or beat up Ketchel putting that fight in jeopardy. Having said that, I do think Ketchel was an extraordinary fighter.

Langford had turned down a chance to fight Ketchel a year or so before, ostensibly because he didn't like the money being offered. At the time they actually fought, Langford was already fighting at HW and (according to one report I have) weighed at least 10 pounds heavier than Ketchel. I'm not so sure Langford could still make the weight or was seriously pursuing a title shot there by that time.

[McGrain]

Langford had turned down a chance to fight Ketchel a year or so before, ostensibly because he didn't like the money being offered. At the time they actually fought, Langford was already fighting at HW and (according to one report I have) weighed at least 10 pounds heavier than Ketchel. I'm not so sure Langford could still make the weight or was seriously pursuing a title shot there by that time.


I have Langford weighing heavier than that, 175lbs if memory serves, with Ketchel weighing 159. I take your point about the weights, but Joe Woodman:

"Philadelphia [for the first fight]...was the last place we wanted to be...we wanted the San Francisco fight [later in the year]...with Ketchel's title riding on the line and...$30,000...[promoter] Coffroth wouldn't accept unless I agreed to the Philadelphia six-rounder. Of course I was dead against it. We had nothing to gain but a few thousand dollars with everything to lose if anything went wrong."

Sam is on record as saying the plans for this second fight "affected" his performance in the first fight and a few contemporary reports have something fishy about the first fight. It does add up to some sort of secondry fight in the pipe.

Incidently, it seems odd that this one is listed as a win for Langford on boxrec. It seems that the press was totally split, if anything with a lean to Ketchel. Draw seems right, but there it is.

EDIT: I've been looking at this fight, and I was dead wrong with what I wrote here. Most publications do give it to Langford, although it's described as being very very close by almost everyone.

[McGrain]

From Boxrec -

"7 [papers] had Langford ahead, 4 had Ketchel, and 2 had it a draw. Thus, the mark of a Langford newspaper win."

[cotto20]

Langford had turned down a chance to fight Ketchel a year or so before, ostensibly because he didn't like the money being offered. At the time they actually fought, Langford was already fighting at HW and (according to one report I have) weighed at least 10 pounds heavier than Ketchel. I'm not so sure Langford could still make the weight or was seriously pursuing a title shot there by that time.

interesting. I have read that langford was getting a shot at ketchel's middlweight title, and this was only a taster for when they actually had there real fight for there title. and then ketchel died.

[My2Sense]

I take your point about the weights, but Joe Woodman:

"Philadelphia [for the first fight]...was the last place we wanted to be...we wanted the San Francisco fight [later in the year]...with Ketchel's title riding on the line and...$30,000...[promoter] Coffroth wouldn't accept unless I agreed to the Philadelphia six-rounder. Of course I was dead against it. We had nothing to gain but a few thousand dollars with everything to lose if anything went wrong."



That's odd, because Woodman had turned down an offer for Sam to fight Ketchel in San Fran the year before, and said at the time he would prefer to fight him in Philly. :think

[McGrain]

That's odd, because Woodman had turned down an offer for Sam to fight Ketchel in San Fran the year before, and said at the time he would prefer to fight him in Philly. :think


Well who knows? I guess the "last place we wanted to be" reference is to the conditions of the fight, rather than the physical place, however. I have no idea what happened a year before, but this is an interesting snippet form right before the first fight:

"Although the battle is to be nothing more than a six round affair, it promises lots of action from gong to gong, provided, of course, that the contest is not a neatly framed agreement between the principles to last the six round limit, with a view to getting a long route date and a fat purse later on."

That's from The Washington Herald. Interesting that the paper was to call exactly what might have happened. Nice work that man. Here's the headline from the same paper the day after the fight:

"LANGFORD PLANS ANOTHER GO - FUTURE BOUT SEEMS ASSURED AS RESULT OF KETCHEL FIGHT"

It goes on:

"The fight, on the surface at least, was a draw, but few of the experts doubted that it was a draw because the negro wished it. Everything is now smoothed for a fight to the finish between the two men...when the final bell rang last night at the National Athletic Club, those who understood the situation were satisfied that Langford was up to his old trick of saving a man he could beat in order to use him as a later meal ticket."

Sam says he told Ketchel at the end of the fight: "See you in San Fransisco Mr.Ketchel."

It's a snow job or the second fight was on.

[McGrain]

Langford also called Ketchel the best white fighter he ever faced, and the most aggressive.

[Unforgiven]

I think Langford is arguably the best fighter, pound-for-pound, of all-time.

Possibly number 1 middleweight of all-time, probably number 1 light-heavyweight of all-time, and probably top 10 heavyweight of all-time.