Where should Sam Langford be ranked as an all-time heavyweight ?

[Unforgiven]

Many contemporary commentators (eg. John L Sullivan, Joe Jeanette) reckoned Langford was the best fighter in the world during Jack Johnson's reign, and that he could have beat Johnson had he been given a return match.
It's pointless speculation whether or not he'd' beat Johnson, but comparing records it's clear that Langford was more active and beat more quality heavyweights in the relevant time period.
Jack Dempsey reckoned he wouldn't have survived a fight with Langford without being KO'd.
And Langford KO'd Harry Wills twice when he was already past his best.

There are numerous quotes from old-timers attested to Langford's prowess, skill and punching power.They all suggest he was on a par with legends like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis. So I wonder why Langford rarely gets ranked alongside them in lists ?

I suspect some people favour men who actually HELD the championship, but among those who actually KNOW ABOUT Langford that hardly seems fair.

[McGrain]

I think that Langford should be below Wills. I have him at #20, and i'm pretty happy with that.

[mcvey]

Many contemporary commentators (eg. John L Sullivan, Joe Jeanette) reckoned Langford was the best fighter in the world during Jack Johnson's reign, and that he could have beat Johnson had he been given a return match.
It's pointless speculation whether or not he'd' beat Johnson, but comparing records it's clear that Langford was more active and beat more quality heavyweights in the relevant time period.
Jack Dempsey reckoned he wouldn't have survived a fight with Langford without being KO'd.
And Langford KO'd Harry Wills twice when he was already past his best.

There are numerous quotes from old-timers attested to Langford's prowess, skill and punching power.They all suggest he was on a par with legends like Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis. So I wonder why Langford rarely gets ranked alongside them in lists ?

I suspect some people favour men who actually HELD the championship, but among those who actually KNOW ABOUT Langford that hardly seems fair.
A great great fighter ,but I find him very hard to classify ,as to weight was he a Heavy? or really a terrific Light Heavy? Johnson allways said he had the defensive ability to tie up Langford and neutralise his power,be that as it may both of them improved and matured ophysically after their encounter,Langford ,no doubt deserved a shot,whether he would have been successful is a matter of opinion.On a side note ,Johnson rated Mcvey the better of the "Sam's " ,but that may well have been a smoke screen ,as he was pretty sure of beating him.

[Maxmomer]

I honestly don't care if someone wins the championship or not. I rate Langford just outside my top 10 around Schmeling, Wills, Jeffries, Charles.

[janitor]

Langford is just outside the top 10 or just inside it and the only reason that he is not ranked higher might simply be that he never had the chance to prove it.

As an all round package Lanfgord prety much had everything. He had all time great finishing ability, ring inteligence, mobility, all time great durability. He was like a miniture hybrid of Jack Dempsey and Jersey Joe Walcott.

If we dont take into acount his physical limitations then he was the most complete heavyweight package of all time.

As a finisher Langford is among the absolute elite of all time heavyweights allong with Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, and Mike Tyson. For my money he might have been the best of the lot in terms of, who would punish you the most for a single mistake and manufacture one if you didnt make it.

[McGrain]

Langford is just outside the top 10 or just inside it and the only reason that he is not ranked higher might simply be that he never had the chance to prove it.


Where do you think he should be relative to a) Wills and b) Dempsey?

[Mendoza]

#16-#20.

[janitor]

Where do you think he should be relative to a) Wills and b) Dempsey?

a) I personaly have Langford higher though there is not much in it. For my money Langford went through the black dynamite crew while they were at their absolute peaks while Wills put the tin lid on matters when they were declining. Also Langford fought to a more punishing schedule.

Having said that there is only a couple of places between them either way and if sombody has Wills higher they are being realistic.

b)I have Dempsey higher due to his level of dominance at his peak.

This has to be seen in light of the ridiculous schedule Langford had to fight to however. If he had the same advantages as Dempsey he might have been at that sort of level or even higher.

[McGrain]

a) I personaly have Langford higher though there is not much in it. For my money Langford went through the black dynamite crew while they were at their absolute peaks while Wills put the tin lid on matters when they were declining. Also Langford fought to a more punishing schedule.

Having said that there is only a couple of places between them either way and if sombody has Wills higher they are being realistic.

Hmmmm.

Wills thoroughly dominated a past-peak but still competitive Langford over the course of their series. Not definitive, but it does hold some water. Wills was uncrowned - I nearly wrote "champion" there, but we could do without another 15 page thread - challanger for a longer period with a stronger claim...I also think he would do better against the field at large. Wills would be a good bet against Tyson, for example. Langford would not be.

Your thoughts? Also, while I have you, who would you make favourite in a Jackson-Langford match up if you were speculating?

b)I have Dempsey higher due to his level of dominance at his peak.

I think it's fair to have Demspey higher than Langford - but as you know, your post overall gets complicated for me here, because I consider Wills should always be above Dempsey.

[mcvey]

a) I personaly have Langford higher though there is not much in it. For my money Langford went through the black dynamite crew while they were at their absolute peaks while Wills put the tin lid on matters when they were declining. Also Langford fought to a more punishing schedule.

Having said that there is only a couple of places between them either way and if sombody has Wills higher they are being realistic.

b)I have Dempsey higher due to his level of dominance at his peak.

This has to be seen in light of the ridiculous schedule Langford had to fight to however. If he had the same advantages as Dempsey he might have been at that sort of level or even higher.
I think its more than possible Langford went into some fights" handcuffed ",I don't beleive this was true of Wills.Given there was around 8 inches disparity in height and roughly 40 lbs in weight Langfords early wins over the very good but perhaps not peaked Wills look even better with hindsight.

[Unforgiven]

The only thing that would make me put Dempsey above Langford is that I think Dempsey looks awesome on some of the film, whereas film of Langford is grainy and unclear. But at some point I have to go on reports and testimony, and combined with viewing their records.
I think Langford's record and consistent quality of opposition far exceeds Dempsey's, and Dempsey himself reckoned Langford would have hammered him.
It's a shame no clear footage of Langford at his best exists.

I'm a huge Dempsey fan, I think he looks awesome on film, as good as any fighter I've seen, but in light of accomplishments and everything considered I believe I should rate Langford higher.

As for Harry Wills, I need to examine his record further.
He fought Langford so many times I wonder how many of those fights were entirely on-the-level. Were they both prepared to KO each other every single time they fought, or were some of those contests somewhat pre-arranged ?

[janitor]

[quote=McGrain]Hmmmm.

Wills thoroughly dominated a past-peak but still competitive Langford over the course of their series. Not definitive, but it does hold some water.


The trouble with such generalisations is that the series ran from a point where Langford was past his best but still dangerous untill he was a rocking chair relic and there were frankly better challengers out there for Wills to be facing.

For the first few fights the series was fairly even with the only knockout wins coming to Langford.

For the last few fights of the series Langford had lost to Fred Fulton and was slipping down the rankings. Wills arguably alowed contenders such as Fulton and Dempsey to steal a march on him by repeatedly rematching the debris of the black dynamite crew instead of taking on the new up and coming challengers (possibly he had no choice).

Wills was uncrowned - I nearly wrote "champion" there, but we could do without another 15 page thread - challanger for a longer period with a stronger claim...

The same is true of Langford although heslipped back more frequently in part due to his tighter schedule.

Basicaly Langford was the logical challenger from the point where he claimed the coloured heavyweight title right up untill the point where Wills stamped his dominance on it.


I also think he would do better against the field at large. Wills would be a good bet against Tyson, for example. Langford would not be.

Your thoughts?


Hard to say, but I think you could pick a number of fighters that Langford would do better against and a number that Wills would do better against.

Tyson is perhaps a case where Wills would have a much better chance for stylistic reasons.


Also, while I have you, who would you make favourite in a Jackson-Langford match up if you were speculating?


Verry hard to say for obvious reasons.

Both are terific punchers and great ring strategists. Langford is the better finisher and the more durable which makes it likley that he could win by knockout in one fight and more than likley in a series of three.

Jackson has better reach size and physical equipment which gives him a good chance of winning a decision when combined with his technical skills.

I think if they fight three times they split a series with the only knockout win coming to Langford.


I think it's fair to have Demspey higher than Langford - but as you know, your post overall gets complicated for me here, because I consider Wills should always be above Dempsey.


I can see why some people would have Wills over Dempsey especialy if they scored heavily for depth of competition.

Wills is the most underrated heavyweight of all time in this regard.

[SuzieQ49]

a) I personaly have Langford higher though there is not much in it. For my money Langford went through the black dynamite crew while they were at their absolute peaks while Wills put the tin lid on matters when they were declining. Also Langford fought to a more punishing schedule.



On the flipside janitor, you can look it at like a very inexperience green wills put the tin lid on matters when they were FAR MORE experienced. wills was thrown to the best wolves early and came out on top.

[SuzieQ49]

langford and jenette were very much at/near there prime when a green harry wills beat them in 1913 and 1914

[Big N Bad]

i dont know where i'd put langford on the top ten list but he'd definetly be up there. i have him #1 p4p.
also langford could have beaten anybody from ali to lewis. i bet most of you are thinking...maybe ali but not lewis. lewis is too big. and how can such a small man generate so much power?

in terms of skill, langford would have very little problem getting through to ali with his punches or on lewis. this guy was an expert at fighting larger foes.
but people dont seem to understand how hard this guy could hit.
i'll try and explain.

if you have a look at the pictures in the sam langford book by clay moyle, you cant help but notice how broad he was, quite extradordinary. his upperbody was like a heavyweights, easily!
this is where alot of his power came from, he was also freakishly strong, you could see this just by looking at the way he was build. theres a picture of langford standing alongside alot of men, and he stands out simply becos of his broadness.

alot of his top calibre opponents said that they never had been hit harder before or since. gunboat smith said that langford destroyed him, he went on to say that he was never the same fighter again. iron hague was also destroyed by langford, who sam knocked spark out with one punch which lifted him of the canvas. hague lost his confidence from then on and started losing to opponents whom he previously beat.
jim flynn who had fought everyone from johnson to dempsey said that langford not only was the best fighter he faced but the hardest puncher of them all!

wills also said langford was the best fighter he fought and his punches were extremly powerful. he went on to say that of all the hardest punchers he faced, there best shots were nutting compared to langfords punches.

i can go on but you must realise that this guy was no joke when it came to power and especially his skill!

[TommyV]

It's worth noting though that he beat Wills twice out of 20 fights or something and lost to him 13 times if I remember correctly. He has very good wins though over Wills himself, McVea, Jeannette and Gunboat Smith to name a few, so he would rank certainly top 20 for me, probably top 15. I would personally rate him as the G.O.A.T though on a p4p basis.

[McGrain]

[quote]


The trouble with such generalisations is that the series ran from a point where Langford was past his best but still dangerous untill he was a rocking chair relic and there were frankly better challengers out there for Wills to be facing.

For the first few fights the series was fairly even with the only knockout wins coming to Langford.

I agree with most of this, which is why i describe it as "holding some water" rather than definitive. If this series had been carried out peak for peak I would be happy to call it for Wills, I feel you can put aside stylistic factors, head to head etc., even achievment to a degree! It's the reason I have Britton above Lewis, even pound for pound. I feel like that one was settled.



Hard to say, but I think you could pick a number of fighters that Langford would do better against and a number that Wills would do better against.

Demspey is a fine example! Dempsey would be a favorite against Wills but no better than a coin flip against Langford.


Both are terific punchers and great ring strategists. Langford is the better finisher and the more durable which makes it likley that he could win by knockout in one fight and more than likley in a series of three.

Jackson has better reach size and physical equipment which gives him a good chance of winning a decision when combined with his technical skills.

So difficult this one, but I lean towards Jackson over the very short and very long distances. Perhaps Langford's best chance would be over something like 20 with the right fight plan. But I'd be picking Jackson based upon what we know.

Wills is the most underrated heavyweight of all time in this regard.

Greb ;)

[he grant]

First keep in mind you are basically ranking a middleweight if he stayed at his prime weight ... how many middleweights do we even ask this question about ? None other than Langford ...

The real question is where he rates pound for pound ... at heavyweight he would devastate most but the biggest guys with the big jabs would give him trouble as Wills did late in his career ... keep in mind Wills was over 6'2" and 220 ... Fulton gave him trouble as well, tall man, long jab ...

I think Langford would surprise in who he would defeat ... I would give him a hell of a shot against Joe Louis ... Galento tagged Joe and rocked him ... the cagey, iron jawed Langford could get one in and Joe would never recover ..I think he would KO Marciano as well ...Dempsey too ...

I just think the Ali's and the Holmes were too big, quick and able to box and stay away ...

[Mendoza]

First keep in mind you are basically ranking a middleweight if he stayed at his prime weight ... how many middleweights do we even ask this question about ? None other than Langford ...

The real question is where he rates pound for pound ... at heavyweight he would devastate most but the biggest guys with the big jabs would give him trouble as Wills did late in his career ... keep in mind Wills was over 6'2" and 220 ... Fulton gave him trouble as well, tall man, long jab ...

I think Langford would surprise in who he would defeat ... I would give him a hell of a shot against Joe Louis ... Galento tagged Joe and rocked him ... the cagey, iron jawed Langford could get one in and Joe would never recover ..I think he would KO Marciano as well ...Dempsey too ...

I just think the Ali's and the Holmes were too big, quick and able to box and stay away ...

While I will not say Langford would beat the best of all time, he could. Sam had an attacking two-fisted type of style. He loved to mix it up, could cut off the ring, and had power in both fists. His speed, and skills look solid even on older films.

In my judgment Langford's chin at heavyweight was on par or better than fellow attack oriented swarmers in Jack Dempsey's, or Rocky Marciano’s!

I say this because from 11-12-1906 to 5-11-1971 Langford was in 114 fights, mostly at heavyweight. And you know something he was never stopped in that period despite facing big punchers like Wills, and McVey multiple times. Now that is one heck of a chin.

Fred Fulton did the trick in 6-19-1917, but the TKO stoppage loss was a on cuts.

[McGrain]

While I will not say Langford would beat the best of all time, he could. Sam had an attacking two-fisted type of style. He loved to mix it up, could cut off the ring, and had power in both fists. His speed, and skills look solid even on older films.

In my judgment Langford's chin at heavyweight was on par or better than fellow attack oriented swarmers in Jack Dempsey's, or Rocky Marciano’s!

I say this because from 11-12-1906 to 5-11-1971 Langford was in 114 fights, mostly at heavyweight. And you know something he was never stopped in that period despite facing big punchers like Wills, and McVey multiple times. Now that is one heck of a chin.

Fred Fulton did the trick in 6-19-1917, but the TKO stoppage loss was a on cuts.



Good post.

[Mendoza]

Good post.

You have to see Sam Langford in real time speed to appreciate him. I suggested that poster Upwithevil slow down or speed up the rounds so they end at 3:00 even. At this speed, you can really see how good Langford is. While it is not perfect, it is a revelation.

When taking about Langford, some refer to him as small. I have seen Langford’s work out clips with a clear film. Actually, Sam had long arms, broad shoulders, and lumberjack’s back, and thick legs of steel. Langford was not small, a better description of him is extremely compact.

[Chaney]

Langford just sneaks into the top ten heavyweights for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Dempsey quote I read said that he was afraid to face Langford when he was young and 'up and coming'. Dempsey went on to say that even at his peak, he wasn't sure he could beat a prime Sam.

It's not quite the same as saying he was afraid of fighting Langford, period. Dempsey also said once that he thought "Langford was the best fighter we ever had"

[he grant]

The loss to Fulton was not a cut, it was the fight where Sam first seriously injured his eye ...up to that point he simply could not get past the giant's jab ..

[Loewe]

9. Jack Dempsey
10. Harry Wills
11. Sam Langford
12. Goerge Foreman
13. Sonny Liston

That´s where i rate him.

[Mendoza]

The loss to Fulton was not a cut, it was the fight where Sam first seriously injured his eye ...up to that point he simply could not get past the giant's jab ..

Thanks He Grant. On flim, Langford looks like he would have some trouble vs a long armed power jabber.

I think Fulton deserves some credit for the win, but Langford was past his prime by then.

By the way, are you the gentleman who produced the Larry Holmes documentary?

[he grant]

That is me ... I've just started to hang out at East Side as I have heard some good things about it and wanted a change ...

Let's keep Langford/Wills in perspective ....

one man was on the way up (Wills) while the other was clearly on the way down (Sam) ...add in poor vision and for the most part poor condition and combine the huge size difference and is there any wonder Wills for the most part dominated ? In addition, since Sam, even bloated and half blind still mostly dominated the rest of the heavyweights, it says tons about Wills who has way too easily been pushed aside by Dempsey fans as nothing special anyway when in reality Dempsey and team ducked him in the ulgyiest way imaginable ...

check out this photo...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[janitor]

The loss to Fulton was not a cut, it was the fight where Sam first seriously injured his eye ...up to that point he simply could not get past the giant's jab ..

Lets not forgett though that the first thing to leave a fighter is his footwork and this might have been critical to Langfords losses to Fulton and for that matter Wills.

[janitor]

When taking about Langford, some refer to him as small. I have seen Langford’s work out clips with a clear film. Actually, Sam had long arms, broad shoulders, and lumberjack’s back, and thick legs of steel. Langford was not small, a better description of him is extremely compact.

I saw a picture of an old Sam Langford with Joe Louis once.

While he is much shorter than Louis his head and torso are somewhat larger.

If you matched them in the ring then Louis would have advantages of height and reach but I would not say that he had an advantage in bulk or strength necisarily.

[he grant]

Call me crazy but I feel Sam stops Louis ...

[janitor]

Call me crazy but I feel Sam stops Louis ...

It would always be on the cards.

A few people who saw them both thought that it would be so.