Some sensible answers, and Mayweather, Tyson and Calzaghe are banned from this thread. As thats all everyone ever says, just for the sake of it!

I love the guy, but Aaron Pryor gets severely overrated. Don't get me wrong he was great but look at his fight record...Cervantes was on the downside..Arguello was at the tail end of his illustrious career. Aside from those two his opponents are nothing to write home about.

Liek I said, he is one of the greats in his division..but the overrating kicks in when people claim he would destroy Leonard and asinine assumptions such as that. Claiming he would completely dismantly all time greats. I mean, there is nothing on his resume to suggest that. It's one thing to destroy over the hill, once great fighters and journeymen...it's another to do it to the best of the best.

oscar de la hoya has had a good career... he is HOF worthy... but he was way overrated IMO... those who beat him, every single fighter who beat him has done better in terms of legacy...

Naseem Hamed, he fought ONE world class fighter and got schooled, yet some people still think he was some kind of god.

oscar de la hoya has had a good career... he is HOF worthy... but he was way overrated IMO... those who beat him, every single fighter who beat him has done better in terms of legacy...


Co-sign. DLH did a lot in and for boxing, and I give him mass cred for takin all comers. But he lost some that woulda really raised his legacy to a higher level. There were bad decisions that went both ways in his fights tho. I do think he gets overrated by a lotta cats tho.

I love the guy, but Aaron Pryor gets severely overrated. Don't get me wrong he was great but look at his fight record...Cervantes was on the downside..Arguello was at the tail end of his illustrious career. Aside from those two his opponents are nothing to write home about.

Liek I said, he is one of the greats in his division..but the overrating kicks in when people claim he would destroy Leonard and asinine assumptions such as that. Claiming he would completely dismantly all time greats. I mean, there is nothing on his resume to suggest that. It's one thing to destroy over the hill, once great fighters and journeymen...it's another to do it to the best of the best.

Agreed.

And the "Leonard feared Pryor" has become a pet peeve of mine (as have numerous Legendary Night Myths).

Pryor's one of those fighters who I think of highly in terms of H2H, but not especially high historically in achievements. His drug abuse and management problems played a bigger part in him not achieving what he should have rather than how the big-name welterweights allegedly fearing him.

I agree that De La Hoya is over-rated.

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biography-American-Champion/dp/0786439947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238968562&sr=1-1

Jack Dempsey.

Rocky Marciano and Vitali Klistchko (see him vs Byrd and washed up Lennox)

Ali, although great, does get overrated by many - he often get's the unbeatable status even when he did lose. Not a knock or anything.

I guess saying that, every fighter has a degree of overrated - ness.

Robinson heralded as the all time p4p champion due to his longevity rather than quality of opposition (which was good, but I've seen better). some example

Tyson get's overrated as well by some, he carries the same sort of "unbeatable" aura that people give Ali. Even in direct style match ups, such as Foreman.

Calzaghe has to be one of the most overrated current gen boxers. Having beat up second rate opponents for most of his career, fighting a Jones that has been owned by Tarver and Johnson, and getting the only good win of his career..a gift decision over Hopkins.

I can't really see how De La Hoya get's overrated, I don't know a single boxing fan that thinks he'd beat on the really great fighters such as Leonard, Duran..Hearns etc. In his prime he was actually decent to, it's only these recent losses and his richy attitude that have made his legacy fall.

I say Bernard Hopkins is severly overrated in terms of legacy like he gets credit for Tito and DlH when both were blown up W.W.Also Winky Another blown up J.R M.W and bums ass Tarver wich he still a no body cuz he beat Roy dnt mean **** Jones was on his way down anyways.Pavlik had no expirience still a kid that only had Jermain Taylor under his belt alredy.Hes not legacy type thats all!!!

all the old slow white guys like jim jeffries john l sullivan etc....

modern day mike tyson....people always say in his prime he would beat lennox and evander which is just absurd since he got his ass kicked......plus his bob n weave style isnt built for longetivity....

and prince naseem entertaining but his style would not last against top competition....

I say Bernard Hopkins is severly overrated in terms of legacy like he gets credit for Tito and DlH when both were blown up W.W.Also Winky Another blown up J.R M.W and bums ass Tarver wich he still a no body cuz he beat Roy dnt mean **** Jones was on his way down anyways.Pavlik had no expirience still a kid that only had Jermain Taylor under his belt alredy.Hes not legacy type thats all!!!

Bernard Hopkins is probably the greatest in this past decade. He was the first to knock out DLH, and Tito. He was the first to beat Winky in like a decade, and the first to beat Pavlik at 43 years old. 20 TITLE defenses. Only two of those 20 were the WW that you speak of. What about the other 18 MW defenses? does he get credit for beating all top contender?

Bernard Hopkins is probably the greatest in this past decade. He was the first to knock out DLH, and Tito. He was the first to beat Winky in like a decade, and the first to beat Pavlik at 43 years old. 20 TITLE defenses. Only two of those 20 were the WW that you speak of. What about the other 18 MW defenses? does he get credit for beating all top contender?

Trinidad was a middleweight. KOing Joppy in 5 rounds, when no one else to date has done that even to a shot joppy, makes him a top middleweight. Joppy was a good fighter and top middleweight in the 90s.

Also some of the 18 defenses were weaker like Morrade Hakkar, but they were mandatories. Hopkins overall has a great resume and pretty amazing reign.

The "blown up" stuff is overrated to the max, minus DLH because I agree he didn't fit into the Middleweight frame. Trinidad absolutely did htough.

TO me it is,

Prince Nameed- in his first major fight against a Great fighter, he got whooped.

Joe Calzaghe- Waited 10 years until going agianst great competition. But they were older then him. Had the sorry ass WBO for the whole time, which is a **** belt to be proud to have.

Roy Jones Jr.- he had great skills, but look at the competition he faced. He fought weak competition, and his HW title was whack because Ruiz is probably one of the weakest champions of all time. If he fought Tua or somebody at that time, it would have been Lights Out.

all the old slow white guys like jim jeffries john l sullivan etc....

modern day mike tyson....people always say in his prime he would beat lennox and evander which is just absurd since he got his ass kicked......plus his bob n weave style isnt built for longetivity....

and prince naseem entertaining but his style would not last against top competition....

He got his ass kicked out of his prime element. How can you add since he got his ass kicked if that wasn't him in his prime. It makes no sense.

Unless you beat the best in the top ten.... and capture all belts, [as worthless as they are] you should not be called best or great until you do this. Not only beat the best and capture all belts...But defend them against the best and hold them. AGAINST THE BEST!!!! This thread can answer its self.

He got his ass kicked out of his prime element. How can you add since he got his ass kicked if that wasn't him in his prime. It makes no sense.

Tyson is overrated by many but underrated by just as many. It's almost sickening to see boxing historians leave Mike out and put Jack Johnson or even Dempsey on their lists (sry Benny Leonard). It's even more sickening to think they do this because of the way he conducted his life outside of boxing, yet fighters like Monzon get no heat what so-ever for beating up their wives.

Then of course you do have the rampant Tyson nuthugger that would pick him over any HW in history, but with every boxer you have these. Currently it's Rocky and Vitali.

Jack Dempsey & Jack Johnson by ESPN.com & Bert Sugar.

Aaron Pryor by the Ring Magazine.

all the old slow white guys like....

The Klitschkos?

Poet

Jack Johnson and Bob Fitzsimmons.

Tyson is overrated by many but underrated by just as many. It's almost sickening to see boxing historians leave Mike out and put Jack Johnson or even Dempsey on their lists (sry Benny Leonard). It's even more sickening to think they do this because of the way he conducted his life outside of boxing, yet fighters like Monzon get no heat what so-ever for beating up their wives.

Then of course you do have the rampant Tyson nuthugger that would pick him over any HW in history, but with every boxer you have these. Currently it's Rocky and Vitali.

It's cool. I'm not sure where I would rank Dempsey as far as "ATG" status anyway since I've never made a list like that, but he is one of my favorite fighters to watch. His competition is very debatable so I understand where you are coming from.

Gatti is another fighter I like very much and liked watching him, but I'm not going to rate him amongst the ATG fighters as far a legacy of who they beat. Top guy for excitement though.
Dempsey is a better fighter for me than Gatti so I'm not comparing them like that.

Personal feelings have to be put aside as best you can.

It's the same with my favorite fighter, Joe Louis. If I did make a list, I do think he would be in my top 10 without question. But if we start to debate who he beats throughout history, I think some fighters may beat him, like a prime Ali...at least in the first match.

Jack Johnson and Bob Fitzsimmons.

I agree with this. His resume at Middleweight for being so highly regarded there is....not that much.

all the old slow white guys like jim jeffries john l sullivan etc....
modern day mike tyson....people always say in his prime he would beat lennox and evander which is just absurd since he got his ass kicked......plus his bob n weave style isnt built for longetivity....

and prince naseem entertaining but his style would not last against top competition....

i agree, although i dunno what being white has to do with it

pre 20/30s guys are extremely overrated, before guys like tunney, louis, robinson, walcott etc came along we pretty much had a gaggle of swinging brawlers we called boxers (bar the odd fighter such as benny leonard)

Bernard Hopkins is probably the greatest in this past decade. He was the first to knock out DLH, and Tito. He was the first to beat Winky in like a decade, and the first to beat Pavlik at 43 years old. 20 TITLE defenses. Only two of those 20 were the WW that you speak of. What about the other 18 MW defenses? does he get credit for beating all top contender?

What top contenters you refering too??? all those bums!!!Name some one legitimate besides Roy jones,Keith Holmes,(Tito,Dhl these two blown up W.W),( blown up Jr. MW Winky),Bum ass Joppy, who?? you tell me!! he fought a whole bumch of no ones!!!!

I agree with this. His resume at Middleweight for being so highly regarded there is....not that much.

To be fair I rarely see him ranked highly as a middleweight. He has a very good resume but most of his fights were above 160 pounds which is why it's hard to rate him as a middleweight.

Wins over

Jim Corbett
'Nonpareil' Dempsey
George Gardner
Joe Choynski
Tom Sharkey
Peter Maher
Gus Ruhlin
Jim Hall
Dan Creedon


as well as respectable showings against the much bigger Jim Jeffries and the much younger O'Brien.

To be fair I rarely see him ranked highly as a middleweight. He has a very good resume but most of his fights were above 160 pounds which is why it's hard to rate him as a middleweight.

I rank Fitzsimmons as a top Middleweight. The problem is all his fights at Middleweight were in the 1800s and records are scanty. He was said to have been devastating in that division.

Poet

Trinidad was a middleweight. KOing Joppy in 5 rounds, when no one else to date has done that even to a shot joppy, makes him a top middleweight. Joppy was a good fighter and top middleweight in the 90s.

Also some of the 18 defenses were weaker like Morrade Hakkar, but they were mandatories. Hopkins overall has a great resume and pretty amazing reign.

The "blown up" stuff is overrated to the max, minus DLH because I agree he didn't fit into the Middleweight frame. Trinidad absolutely did htough.

Listen my man Tito was a blown up W.W and the fact that he ko Joppy dnt mean he was a legitimate M.W, did you see the fight???He practically stood there like a statue and do nothing but take flush shots. And not only did he pick on weak oposition he cherry picked most of the guys against those 18 defenses of that weak ass I.B.F belt!!!

To be fair I rarely see him ranked highly as a middleweight. He has a very good resume but most of his fights were above 160 pounds which is why it's hard to rate him as a middleweight.

Wins over

Jim Corbett
'Nonpareil' Dempsey
George Gardner
Joe Choynski
Tom Sharkey
Peter Maher
Gus Ruhlin
Jim Hall
Dan Creedon


as well as respectable showings against the much bigger Jim Jeffries and the much younger O'Brien.

I rank Fitzsimmons as a top Middleweight. The problem is all his fights at Middleweight were in the 1800s and records are scanty. He was said to have been devastating in that division.

Poet

I think he was a great middleweight. He barely weighed more than 160 lbs for many of his heavyweight fights in which he devastated good opposition.

It's tough to rate him because the records weren't kept back then. We do know that some of his opposition were good/great fighters however, no one can dispute that Corbett, Dempsey, Gardner, Choynski and Sharkey were great wins for Fitzsimmons.

The same can't be said about Peter Jackson for example although the people at the time thought of him as one of the best fighters in the world. Looking at his record you won't find too many recognizable names aside from Corbett and Jeffries whom he did not beat.

I think he was a great middleweight. He barely weighed more than 160 lbs for many of his heavyweight fights in which he devastated good opposition.

It's tough to rate him because the records weren't kept back then. We do know that some of his opposition were good/great fighters however, no one can dispute that Corbett, Dempsey, Gardner, Choynski and Sharkey were great wins for Fitzsimmons.

The same can't be said about Peter Jackson for example although the people at the time thought of him as one of the best fighters in the world. Looking at his record you won't find too many recognizable names aside from Corbett and Jeffries whom he did not beat.

Joe Gans, among others, cited Fitz as one his favourite fighters, even taking a menial job at his training camp just to learn from him. What better compliment for him than that?

Listen my man Tito was a blown up W.W and the fact that he ko Joppy dnt mean he was a legitimate M.W, did you see the fight???He practically stood there like a statue and do nothing but take flush shots. And not only did he pick on weak oposition he cherry picked most of the guys against those 18 defenses of that weak ass I.B.F belt!!!

Trinidad was favoured to beat Hopkins, at the time of the fight I don't think anyone would've disputed that Trinidad was a genuine middleweight contender who looked real dangerous.

Also him beating Pavlik is another great win for him, not many gave B Hop a chance but now that he destroyed him everyone just thinks Pavliks rubbish, despite the fact that he schooled Taylor twice, the man who 'beat' Hopkins twice.

It's cool. I'm not sure where I would rank Dempsey as far as "ATG" status anyway since I've never made a list like that, but he is one of my favorite fighters to watch. His competition is very debatable so I understand where you are coming from.

Gatti is another fighter I like very much and liked watching him, but I'm not going to rate him amongst the ATG fighters as far a legacy of who they beat. Top guy for excitement though.
Dempsey is a better fighter for me than Gatti so I'm not comparing them like that.

Personal feelings have to be put aside as best you can.

It's the same with my favorite fighter, Joe Louis. If I did make a list, I do think he would be in my top 10 without question. But if we start to debate who he beats throughout history, I think some fighters may beat him, like a prime Ali...at least in the first match.

Hey I think he's an exciting fighter to watch as well:boxing:

Tyson is overrated by many but underrated by just as many. It's almost sickening to see boxing historians leave Mike out and put Jack Johnson or even Dempsey on their lists (sry Benny Leonard). It's even more sickening to think they do this because of the way he conducted his life outside of boxing, yet fighters like Monzon get no heat what so-ever for beating up their wives.

Then of course you do have the rampant Tyson nuthugger that would pick him over any HW in history, but with every boxer you have these. Currently it's Rocky and Vitali.



Actually it would be sickening if they put Tyson over Dempsey.


It's hard to compare Johnson's era to the modern era, who knows on that one.

Yeah Roy Jones does get REALLY overrated.


A Roy Jones without a glass jaw would have had the raw skill to become a competitor for the number 3 pound for pound all time great spot but then he never had anything like the competition for that either.


You can "what if" all day I suppose.

Trinidad was favoured to beat Hopkins, at the time of the fight I don't think anyone would've disputed that Trinidad was a genuine middleweight contender who looked real dangerous.

Also him beating Pavlik is another great win for him, not many gave B Hop a chance but now that he destroyed him everyone just thinks Pavliks rubbish, despite the fact that he schooled Taylor twice, the man who 'beat' Hopkins twice.

Man he look real dangerous against a punching bag that didnt no how to move his head so that made him a genuine M.W???I give him props for beating Pavlik but Pavlik was too green for the man as well as the worst M.W ever wich is Jermain(soft intentions)Taylor and who did he beat that was so great???Man the man is good hes just overrated IMO!!!

bernard hopkins, his resume is not better than oscars and some are sayin oscars overrated

Actually it would be sickening if they put Tyson over Dempsey.


It's hard to compare Johnson's era to the modern era, who knows on that one.

how? undisputed champion than went near 40-0 and is the youngest HW champ ever vs..what? we have argued about this far to much Res..

Yeah Roy Jones does get REALLY overrated.


A Roy Jones without a glass jaw would have had the raw skill to become a competitor for the number 3 pound for pound all time great spot but then he never had anything like the competition for that either.


You can "what if" all day I suppose.

He's not a glassjaw IMO. Coming back down to LHW after moving up at 34 years old would mess anyone up.

Man he look real dangerous against a punching bag that didnt no how to move his head so that made him a genuine M.W???I give him props for beating Pavlik but Pavlik was too green for the man as well as the worst M.W ever wich is Jermain(soft intentions)Taylor and who did he beat that was so great???Man the man is good hes just overrated IMO!!!

bernards resume resmbles calzaghes, they both were the longest reignin champions in their divisions and both defended the title 20 or more times.
people like to point out that trinidad was the favorite but so was lacy so does that really mean that they were a legitimate threat?
calzghe's best wins are over older men and bernards best wins are against small men, bernard is a great fighter skill wise but overrated legacy wise

bernards resume resmbles calzaghes, they both were the longest reignin champions in their divisions and both defended the title 20 or more times.
people like to point out that trinidad was the favorite but so was lacy so does that really mean that they were a legitimate threat?
calzghe's best wins are over older men and bernards best wins are against small men, bernard is a great fighter skill wise but overrated legacy wise

Anyone with a long reign usually has below average competition, Hopkins having decent competition making him stand out.

Listen my man Tito was a blown up W.W and the fact that he ko Joppy dnt mean he was a legitimate M.W, did you see the fight???He practically stood there like a statue and do nothing but take flush shots. And not only did he pick on weak oposition he cherry picked most of the guys against those 18 defenses of that weak ass I.B.F belt!!!

This explains it all........no matter what I'll say it won't make a difference. You were probably one of the people saying how trinidad would crush him and now hate Hopkins....

saying Tito was a blown up WW is ridiculous, he weighed more than Hopkins on fight night. I guess with this logic it completely discredits Hagler of his biggest win. Same goes for Lamotta.

saying Tito was a blown up WW is ridiculous, he weighed more than Hopkins on fight night. I guess with this logic it completely discredits Hagler of his biggest win. Same goes for Lamotta.


It's crazy to dismiss his win over Tito, especially considering Trinidad was the heavy favorite. The most impressive thing is how he thoroughly dominated...

how? undisputed champion than went near 40-0 and is the youngest HW champ ever vs..what? we have argued about this far to much Res..

"Undisputed?" :lol1:

the fact that people decide to make a bunch of new Boxing divisions dosen't effect the accomplishment of fighters anywhere except on paper.


The only difference is guys that would have been merely top contenders in another era just get to call themselves champions in this era. It's not like fighters fight more now. They didn't give fighters a cookie for everything back then.

Youngest champ? You remember what I asked before, does Tyson all of a sudden become "not great" if another fighter grabs the title even younger? If he dosen't, then dosen't that mean that Floyd Patterson and all of the other former youngest champions are in the same boat as Tyson?

we are all overrated by someone stop creating these threads to spill the trolls out please

"Undisputed?" :lol1:

the fact that people decide to make a bunch of new Boxing divisions dosen't effect the accomplishment of fighters anywhere except on paper.


The only difference is guys that would have been merely top contenders in another era just get to call themselves champions in this era. It's not like fighters fight more now. They didn't give fighters a cookie for everything back then.

Youngest champ? You remember what I asked before, does Tyson all of a sudden become "not great" if another fighter grabs the title even younger? If he dosen't, then dosen't that mean that Floyd Patterson and all of the other former youngest champions are in the same boat as Tyson?

It means he had to beat multiple contenders to get the same status as someone who who fought during Dempsey's time. Discrediting him as usual.

Don't even get me started about Dempsey's down falls, I can just as easily pick his record apart and use funny emoticons along with it.

Even if you don't car about the titles, Tyson went 37-0, something Dempsey never came close to doing.

Jack Dempsey & Jack Johnson by ESPN.com & Bert Sugar.

Aaron Pryor by the Ring Magazine.

You can add Jack Dempsey onto Ring Magazine, as well as Rocky Marciano.

While I think more highly of them than most detractors do, #16 and #12???

Plus there's the fact that it was "the last 80 years", and Dempsey did little of note after 1921.

You can add Jack Dempsey onto Ring Magazine, as well as Rocky Marciano.

While I think more highly of them than most detractors do, #16 and #12???

Plus there's the fact that it was "the last 80 years", and Dempsey did little of note after 1921.

Agreed. Having Dempsey and Johnson in the all time top 10 pound for pound (as Sugar and ESPN did) is quite terrible. Marciano was also rated too highly by ESPN at number 14.

I know that people have different opinions but there is just no case to rate Johnson and especially Dempsey that highly. For Johnson you can atleast name Jeffries, Langford, Ketchel, Fitzsimmons, McVea, Jeannette, Burns as top fighters that he has beaten, ignoring the circumstances of those fights, but Dempsey doesn't have those kind of names on his resume.

It means he had to beat multiple contenders to get the same status as someone who who fought during Dempsey's time. Discrediting him as usual.

We are not talking about hypotheticals or what "someone in Dempsey's time" might have done, we are talking about actual fighters. Most had to work their way up to the top and earn their place.


I repeat, it is nothing but semantics. The only difference here is that instead of calling Tyson's oppenent's top contenders you call them "champions". Fighters don't fight more often nowadays.


Look I think Tyson's fights are as action packed and exciting as the next guy does but I don't let it confuse me about his place in Boxing history.

Furthermore given the fact that he failed to successfully take on any of the the greatest heavyweights of his era, if he didn't "unify the title" there would really be nothing to talk about, he would have just been the equivalent of another top contender.

oscar de la hoya has had a good career... he is HOF worthy... but he was way overrated IMO... those who beat him, every single fighter who beat him has done better in terms of legacy...

Co sign.. he lost almost all of his big fights.. He did fight everybody though.. But in my book you gotta beat'em to get the full credit..

Co sign.. he lost almost all of his big fights.. He did fight everybody though.. But in my book you gotta beat'em to get the full credit..

He has been a staple of Boxing, but yeah his best wins were an over the Hill Whitaker and Chavez.

Calzaghe. Took him a decade to unify an awful division.

Decided to face Hopkins and RJJ when they were at the combined age of 83, even then, could only manage stealing an SD from 43 year old Hopkins. lol!

Good boxer, Farce of a resume and a complete waste

John l. Sullivan, Bob Fitzsimons, Jack johnson.

Sam Langford has 46(!) losses, yet he's often rated in people's top 10 ever. This despite also being only 5'6" inches tall and weighing in the 180's. Go figure....

Aaron Pryor

Furthermore given the fact that he failed to successfully take on any of the the greatest heavyweights of his era, if he didn't "unify the title" there would really be nothing to talk about, he would have just been the equivalent of another top contender.

let's just agree to disagree

John l. Sullivan, Bob Fitzsimons, Jack johnson.

Sam Langford has 46(!) losses, yet he's often rated in people's top 10 ever. This despite also being only 5'6" inches tall and weighing in the 180's. Go figure....

Langford had 301 fights and won 203 of them. Please let me know when Mayweather fights his 300 fight.

Poet

Tyson is overrated by many but underrated by just as many. It's almost sickening to see boxing historians leave Mike out and put Jack Johnson or even Dempsey on their lists (sry Benny Leonard). .

Why is it sickening to include Johnson and Dempsey but not Tyson? Both were terrors of their division for far longer. Johnson was a fighter ahead of his time who absolutely toyed with most of his opponents while Dempsey was an unrelenting savage who was knocked out maybe once(?) in his long career

Rocky Marciano and Vitali Klistchko (see him vs Byrd and washed up Lennox)



While I'm kind of on the fence about Vitali, you just knew I would take issue with the Rocky Marciano inclusion. The man utterly sponged the heavyweight division dry (destroying several HOFers in the process), was perhaps the strongest pound-for-pound puncher in the game, never lost or even drew, and had a KO percentage we are not likely to ever see again in our lifetimes.. If anything, he is not rated highly enough!

Deffinatlely Bernard Hopkins!

John l. Sullivan, Bob Fitzsimons, Jack johnson.

Sam Langford has 46(!) losses, yet he's often rated in people's top 10 ever. This despite also being only 5'6" inches tall and weighing in the 180's. Go figure....

It's because he fought champions and contenders from lightweight to heavyweight and had good results against all of them. Unfortunately he was never given a title shot.

Langford defines the word "pound for pound".

Why is it sickening to include Johnson and Dempsey but not Tyson? Both were terrors of their division for far longer. Johnson was a fighter ahead of his time who absolutely toyed with most of his opponents while Dempsey was an unrelenting savage who was knocked out maybe once(?) in his long career



While I'm kind of on the fence about Vitali, you just knew I would take issue with the Rocky Marciano inclusion. The man utterly sponged the heavyweight division dry (destroying several HOFers in the process), was perhaps the strongest pound-for-pound puncher in the game, never lost or even drew, and had a KO percentage we are not likely to ever see again in our lifetimes.. If anything, he is not rated highly enough!

Johnson was "far" longer, but not Dempsey. Dempsey had 6 successful title defenses in about 4 years before losing to Tunney three years after his fight with Firpo. Three of the years he held the title, he was inactive so we can't count them. I do wonder had Dempsey not been inactive for 3 years, would he have beaten Tunney. Three years is a long time for a Pro fighter to be inactive, especially a Rich Pro Fighter that is Champion. Tunney was good though, no question.

Tyson, had 9 successful title defenses and held the title for 3+ years all by the time he was 23 {?}. Impressive he was so young when he did all that but equally impressive he was able to tear down his career faster than Superman could change his clothes back to Clark Kent.

John l. Sullivan, Bob Fitzsimons, Jack johnson.

Sam Langford has 46(!) losses, yet he's often rated in people's top 10 ever. This despite also being only 5'6" inches tall and weighing in the 180's. Go figure....

What a silly comment, Sam beat some of the best of his era and fought all the elite fighters from lightweight to heavyweight. He avoided no one, and had 300+ fights, which is unbelivable. And is considered one of the hardest punchers of all time if not the hardest.

Also some of them defeats come when Langford was virtually blind.

You need to go and learn the history of boxing, something i can tell you lack in.

It's because he fought champions and contenders from lightweight to heavyweight and had good results against all of them. Unfortunately he was never given a title shot.

Langford defines the word "pound for pound".

Agree. Do you know exactly when he started having eye problems?

His weight: Started at Lightweight, maybe Welterweight???

I remember hearing he fought and beat Joe Gans.

Agree. Do you know exactly when he started having eye problems?

His weight: Started at Lightweight, maybe Welterweight???

I remember hearing he fought and beat Joe Gans.

Yes that is correct he beat ''The Old Master'' Joe Gans on a 15 round decision, Langford out weighed Gans by 5 pound. It was held at the Criterion A.C., Boston, Massachusetts, United States, and the date was December 8th 1903.

It's because he fought champions and contenders from lightweight to heavyweight and had good results against all of them. Unfortunately he was never given a title shot.

Langford defines the word "pound for pound".

Lol, you got to this before I did! According to much logic on these boards many fighters are overrated because of double digit losses.

Lol, you got to this before I did! According to much logic on these boards many fighters are overrated because of double digit losses.

Agreed, most of them don't understand the era back then and how things were so much different to the way things are now.

It's hard to listen to some of the trash some posters talk abouth the old school fighters. For example when i hear some posters say they don't rate the likes of Jack Johnson, Sam Lamgford, Harry Greb.:eek:

I'm still waiting for the "Sugar Ray Robinson" was overrated post.

It's one of those things that makes you stop what you are doing and stare at the screen for about an hour and wonder if you should bother to educate the poster.

Agreed, most of them don't understand the era back then and how things were so much different to the way things are now.

It's hard to listen to some of the trash some posters talk abouth the old school fighters. For example when i hear some posters say they don't rate the likes of Jack Johnson, Sam Lamgford, Harry Greb.:eek:

Its insane....a complete lack of knowledge or willingness to even learn. I love the old argument about fighters being bigger, faster, stronger and much more skilled today. Ask for proof and see what kind of answers you get. Its almost comical.

I'm still waiting for the "Sugar Ray Robinson" was overrated post.

It's one of those things that makes you stop what you are doing and stare at the screen for about an hour and wonder if you should bother to educate the poster.

I have had this argument on another board. The poster insisted Robinson shouldn't be rated p4p #1 with 19 losses on his record. Of course he never bothered to learn who the losses were to and at what age Robinson was and after how many fights. Pure ignorance.

What a silly comment, Sam beat some of the best of his era and fought all the elite fighters from lightweight to heavyweight. He avoided no one, and had 300+ fights, which is unbelivable. And is considered one of the hardest punchers of all time if not the hardest.

Also some of them defeats come when Langford was virtually blind.

You need to go and learn the history of boxing, something i can tell you lack in.

I know he beat lots of good fighters. But so did 100's of other fighters in history. And my point was not that Langford was not a great fighter, it was that I feel he is over-rated. Lots think of him in ATG status. Well, there are lots of fighters who are considered great but never had 46 losses. Yes, they came when he was old, yes, they came when he was almost blind. But they did come. And other fighters, like Harry Greb, Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Henry Armstong, Joe Gans, Willie Pep and Archie Moore had well over a hundred fights without nearly that many losses. Percentage wise, he lost more than all those guys. Marcel Cerdan had 115 fights and lost 4 of them. Benny Leonard had 211 fights and lost only 20. Greb had 294 fights and lost only 8 times.

Here's some more. Sam lost 13 times to Harry Wills, but nobody remembers that or calls Harry Wills a great fighter, or at least better than Langford.

I copied this from Boxing Records.com.....It's Langford's record summary.....
won 203 (KO 129) + lost 46 (KO 9) + drawn 52 = 316
rounds boxed 2551 : KO% 40.82

****ATTENTION******To have a lifetime KO% of 41% does not make him one of history's all time hardest punchers. Please.....

This was an opinion question and I gave mine. But you got to start throwing the crap lines like "You need to go and learn the history of boxing, something i can tell you lack in.[/QUOTE]. To call someone with a lifetime KO% of 41% one of the all time hardest punchers???? Langford's longest ever winning streak was 14 wins in a row. Guys like Wills owned him, but Wills is not given half the respect that is shown to Langford.

Somebody once said that Sam Langford was an all time great. That depends on how long that list is. Top 10 all time? Top 100 all time? Top 1,000 all time? Remember, this is all time every division, not just heavyweights. So, are you sticking with your opinion that Langford deserves "legendary" status or was he just a really good fighter in an era that had lots of good, durable fighters?

I'm stickin with my opinion that he is often over-rated. Great fighter, but I can think of many more greater than him and his over-all career record.

One more thing...on another thread somewhere, it was asked if Frazier's legacy was hurt by losing twice to Ali and Foreman, both of which, by the way, beat langford every time out. How come the question of "Did Sam Langfor's 46 losses hurt Langford's legacy was not asked??? Does he get a free pass because he fought in so many divisions? How many guys nowadays fight in many divisions in their careers? Lot's of them. That's not so special or unique. There are lots of great fighters who fought in multiple divisions who had higher KO%'s and less than 46 losses. or how about this question..."Does Langford's 13 losses to Harry Wills hurt his legacy?" ??????

Lastly, to quote Larry Holmes,....."If you want to get technical about it"....it's YOU who sounds like you don't know Langford's and boxing history beyond what the average "Sport's Illistrated" type fan does. Many jump on Sam's bandwagon without checking all the facts first. Can't we have differing opinions without turning it into an argument? Geez.

You can look at the percentages, which tell very little, or you can look at what he achieved.

Bringing up losses to Harry Wills is meaningless since Langford was 5'6 and started out as a lightweight (beating lightweight, welterweight, middleweight and light heavyweight champions and weighed in at those limits) while Harry Wills was 6'3 and 210 lbs. It should be considered an achievement that he was able to knock out a man that big and that good several times.

I know he beat lots of good fighters. But so did 100's of other fighters in history. And my point was not that Langford was not a great fighter, it was that I feel he is over-rated. Lots think of him in ATG status. Well, there are lots of fighters who are considered great but never had 46 losses. Yes, they came when he was old, yes, they came when he was almost blind. But they did come. And other fighters, like Harry Greb, Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Henry Armstong, Joe Gans, Willie Pep and Archie Moore had well over a hundred fights without nearly that many losses. Percentage wise, he lost more than all those guys. Marcel Cerdan had 115 fights and lost 4 of them. Benny Leonard had 211 fights and lost only 20. Greb had 294 fights and lost only 8 times.

Here's some more. Sam lost 13 times to Harry Wills, but nobody remembers that or calls Harry Wills a great fighter, or at least better than Langford.

I copied this from Boxing Records.com.....It's Langford's record summary.....
won 203 (KO 129) + lost 46 (KO 9) + drawn 52 = 316
rounds boxed 2551 : KO% 40.82

****ATTENTION******To have a lifetime KO% of 41% does not make him one of history's all time hardest punchers. Please.....

This was an opinion question and I gave mine. But you got to start throwing the crap lines like "You need to go and learn the history of boxing, something i can tell you lack in.. To call someone with a lifetime KO% of 41% one of the all time hardest punchers???? Langford's longest ever winning streak was 14 wins in a row. Guys like Wills owned him, but Wills is not given half the respect that is shown to Langford.

Somebody once said that Sam Langford was an all time great. That depends on how long that list is. Top 10 all time? Top 100 all time? Top 1,000 all time? Remember, this is all time every division, not just heavyweights. So, are you sticking with your opinion that Langford deserves "legendary" status or was he just a really good fighter in an era that had lots of good, durable fighters?

I'm stickin with my opinion that he is often over-rated. Great fighter, but I can think of many more greater than him and his over-all career record.

One more thing...on another thread somewhere, it was asked if Frazier's legacy was hurt by losing twice to Ali and Foreman, both of which, by the way, beat langford every time out. How come the question of "Did Sam Langfor's 46 losses hurt Langford's legacy was not asked??? Does he get a free pass because he fought in so many divisions? How many guys nowadays fight in many divisions in their careers? Lot's of them. That's not so special or unique. There are lots of great fighters who fought in multiple divisions who had higher KO%'s and less than 46 losses. or how about this question..."Does Langford's 13 losses to Harry Wills hurt his legacy?" ??????

Lastly, to quote Larry Holmes,....."If you want to get technical about it"....it's YOU who sounds like you don't know Langford's and boxing history beyond what the average "Sport's Illistrated" type fan does. Many jump on Sam's bandwagon without checking all the facts first. Can't we have differing opinions without turning it into an argument? Geez.[/QUOTE]

You need a little more info on Langford than just boxrec. Let me help you out.
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/langford.html

The reason for Langfords 41 Ko percentage is due to the cirsumstances of the era he was fighting in. He carried lots of fighters, often fought at huge weight disadvantages, and fought the same top notch fighters over and over again. But remember this he scored more ko's than Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey combined.

And i will stick with my opinion, that Langford deserves legendary status and is a true all time great. And also the reason for some losses was becuase how often he was fighting and he never avoided no one, he was a true fighters fighter, and he fought at huge disadvantages in weight. He was also avoided alot by the likes of Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. Fighters like that don't avoid you for nothing.

I could sit and write on and on about how great Langford was, but by the sounds of it i probaly won't change your thoughts but just belive me fighters like Langford don't come around very often, and when all time great and legendary status is mentioned he will always come into my mind.

You can look at the percentages, which tell very little, or you can look at what he achieved.

Bringing up losses to Harry Wills is meaningless since Langford was 5'6 and started out as a lightweight (beating lightweight, welterweight, middleweight and light heavyweight champions and weighed in at those limits) while Harry Wills was 6'3 and 210 lbs. It should be considered an achievement that he was able to knock out a man that big and that good several times.

Wills was possibly a top 15 all time heavyweight yet he was KO'd by Langford who defeated Joe Gans at 140 lbs, defeated Blackburn and McFadden, went 15 rounds with welterweight champion Barbados Joe Walcott, a fight most thought he had the better of, beat the much bigger Joe Jeannette, went 15 rounds with Jack Johnson while outweighed by 30 lbs, beat avoided black fighters such as McVea, Dixie Kid, Klon***e Haines, Jeff Clark, had the better of a 6 round fight against middleweight champ Stanley Ketchel (in which many thought Langford was holding back), KO'd light heavyweight champ O'Brien in 5 rounds, etc.

Listing his all of his accomplishments would take a while so I'll leave it at that. ;)

What a silly comment, Sam beat some of the best of his era and fought all the elite fighters from lightweight to heavyweight. He avoided no one, and had 300+ fights, which is unbelivable. And is considered one of the hardest punchers of all time if not the hardest.

Also some of them defeats come when Langford was virtually blind.

You need to go and learn the history of boxing, something i can tell you lack in.

The reason for Langfords 41 Ko percentage is due to the cirsumstances of the era he was fighting in. He carried lots of fighters, often fought at huge weight disadvantages, and fought the same top notch fighters over and over again. But remember this he scored more ko's than Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey combined.

And i will stick with my opinion, that Langford deserves legendary status and is a true all time great. And also the reason for some losses was becuase how often he was fighting and he never avoided no one, he was a true fighters fighter, and he fought at huge disadvantages in weight. He was also avoided alot by the likes of Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. Fighters like that don't avoid you for nothing.

I could sit and write on and on about how great Langford was, but by the sounds of it i probaly won't change your thoughts but just belive me fighters like Langford don't come around very often, and when all time great and legendary status is mentioned he will always come into my mind.

Fair enough. I understand your thinking, hope you understand mine.

And Jab, thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Machine, good thoughts in your posts. I'm still not drinking the Sam Langford Kool-Aid, but I'm at least now holding the glass, looking at it. :)

Fair enough. I understand your thinking, hope you understand mine.

And Jab, thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Machine, good thoughts in your posts. I'm still not drinking the Sam Langford Kool-Aid, but I'm at least now holding the glass, looking at it. :)

You will get a lot more respect around here with an open mind and a good attitude than just sticking to your guns whether you are right or wrong. You seem to have a good attitude and your at least willing to be open minded. Im sure we will all look forward to your next posts concerning Langford after you do a little more research on him. We don't all agree all the time, but there are some really solid posters in this section that have a ton of knowledge. I learn new things about fighters here almost daily.

Agreed, most of them don't understand the era back then and how things were so much different to the way things are now.

It's hard to listen to some of the trash some posters talk abouth the old school fighters. For example when i hear some posters say they don't rate the likes of Jack Johnson, Sam Lamgford, Harry Greb.:eek:

I admit I've been extremely frustrated of late by the lack of education in boxing history I've run accross in recent weeks. How can anybody speak on a subject they're ignorant about? And worse, they seem to have no clue just how ignorant they truly are. Some have derrided anything you can learn on the subject by studying it. Is this where we've come to in our educational where anything you might possibly learn is considered bogus? I can't believe the level of anti-intellectualism I've seen and it makes me fear for the future of civilization. It's like they see everything as subjective and since one can't KNOW anything they can simply create their own reality where things are so because that's how they want it to be.

UGGGGG!!!!!

Poet

I'm still waiting for the "Sugar Ray Robinson" was overrated post.

It's one of those things that makes you stop what you are doing and stare at the screen for about an hour and wonder if you should bother to educate the poster.

Sadly it's been done before.

Poet

I admit I've been extremely frustrated of late by the lack of education in boxing history I've run accross in recent weeks. How can anybody speak on a subject they're ignorant about? And worse, they seem to have no clue just how ignorant they truly are. Some have derrided anything you can learn on the subject by studying it. Is this where we've come to in our educational where anything you might possibly learn is considered bogus? I can't believe the level of anti-intellectualism I've seen and it makes me fear for the future of civilization. It's like they see everything as subjective and since one can't KNOW anything they can simply create their own reality where things are so because that's how they want it to be.

UGGGGG!!!!!

Poet

Some posters on here just need to study and learn a little bit more about the history of boxing before writing about the likes of Greb, Jack Johnson etc. Instead of making silly posts about them, it's sad but it happens alot on here.

I know he beat lots of good fighters. But so did 100's of other fighters in history. And my point was not that Langford was not a great fighter, it was that I feel he is over-rated. Lots think of him in ATG status. Well, there are lots of fighters who are considered great but never had 46 losses. Yes, they came when he was old, yes, they came when he was almost blind. But they did come. And other fighters, like Harry Greb, Ray Robinson, Benny Leonard, Henry Armstong, Joe Gans, Willie Pep and Archie Moore had well over a hundred fights without nearly that many losses. Percentage wise, he lost more than all those guys. Marcel Cerdan had 115 fights and lost 4 of them. Benny Leonard had 211 fights and lost only 20. Greb had 294 fights and lost only 8 times.

Here's some more. Sam lost 13 times to Harry Wills, but nobody remembers that or calls Harry Wills a great fighter, or at least better than Langford.

I copied this from Boxing Records.com.....It's Langford's record summary.....
won 203 (KO 129) + lost 46 (KO 9) + drawn 52 = 316
rounds boxed 2551 : KO% 40.82

****ATTENTION******To have a lifetime KO% of 41% does not make him one of history's all time hardest punchers. Please.....

This was an opinion question and I gave mine. But you got to start throwing the crap lines like "You need to go and learn the history of boxing, something i can tell you lack in. To call someone with a lifetime KO% of 41% one of the all time hardest punchers???? Langford's longest ever winning streak was 14 wins in a row. Guys like Wills owned him, but Wills is not given half the respect that is shown to Langford.

Somebody once said that Sam Langford was an all time great. That depends on how long that list is. Top 10 all time? Top 100 all time? Top 1,000 all time? Remember, this is all time every division, not just heavyweights. So, are you sticking with your opinion that Langford deserves "legendary" status or was he just a really good fighter in an era that had lots of good, durable fighters?

I'm stickin with my opinion that he is often over-rated. Great fighter, but I can think of many more greater than him and his over-all career record.

One more thing...on another thread somewhere, it was asked if Frazier's legacy was hurt by losing twice to Ali and Foreman, both of which, by the way, beat langford every time out. How come the question of "Did Sam Langfor's 46 losses hurt Langford's legacy was not asked??? Does he get a free pass because he fought in so many divisions? How many guys nowadays fight in many divisions in their careers? Lot's of them. That's not so special or unique. There are lots of great fighters who fought in multiple divisions who had higher KO%'s and less than 46 losses. or how about this question..."Does Langford's 13 losses to Harry Wills hurt his legacy?" ??????

Lastly, to quote Larry Holmes,....."If you want to get technical about it"....it's YOU who sounds like you don't know Langford's and boxing history beyond what the average "Sport's Illistrated" type fan does. Many jump on Sam's bandwagon without checking all the facts first. Can't we have differing opinions without turning it into an argument? Geez.

Did it occur to you that Langford was a Welterweight fighting Heavyweights? Also you mention Benny Leonard. Leonard is considered by many to be the greatest Lightweight EVER. Yet he had 20 losses which by your logic should disqualify him. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that even for so-called "modern" fighters losses incurred past-prime do not detract from their historical standing. Or do you believe Mike Tyson sucked because he lost to Kevin McBride?

Poet

Some posters on here just need to study and learn a little bit more about the history of boxing before writing about the likes of Greb, Jack Johnson etc. Instead of making silly posts about them, it's sad but it happens alot on here.

That's well said.
My beef is that it seems like some posters are just starting to get their feet wet as a boxing fan and have next to no knowledge of our great sport's rich history. Like there was no history before whatever they know right now.

I don't have any proof, but it seems to me the younger the poster, the less they know about anything prior to 2000.

Those Godzilla vs Bruce Lee junk threads waste space here. But overall, I still think the real boxing historians hang out in this (History) and sometimes in the Fantasy section. I sometimes post in the Non Stop Boxing, but there seems to be lots of kids there with no knowledge of how to write a post without vulgarities and nonsense.

I like the regulars that post here.

[QUOTE=JAB5239; We don't all agree all the time, but there are some really solid posters in this section that have a ton of knowledge. I learn new things about fighters here almost daily.[/QUOTE]



I couldn't agree more! Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but do it in a professional or mature way. Show respect to the other fellas who contribute regularly, because they DO know their boxing.

Like you Jab, I learn new things all the time. This is a great source for info and insights. My one wish is that we all lived real close by and could have weekly or monthly meetings and hang out some. Our wives could cook us some good food while we "mingle" about mangling! I'm 50 now and just got into the internet for the first time a few years ago. I discovered this place late. Didn't know such a thing as a boxing forum where you could BS about fighters even existed.

I find it hilarious everybody picking on Hopkins is either a bonafide Tito supporter, or a Kelly Pavlik fan. Epic. :lol1:

As for my picks, I'd go with Oscar De La Hoya first, for obvious reasons.

And Felix Trinidad second.

I catch an awful lot of flack for that second pick, but to me, Trinidad is as overrated as they come.

Granted his accomplishments are pretty damn special, on paper.

But as far as boxing skill and technique go, he's one of the worst I've seen in my 13 years following this game.

He was a big puncher who everybody fell in love with, because everybody loves a big punch. That's it.

Anytime he found himself unable to land that big punch, he was completely outclassed and embarassed by his smarter, more fundamental opponet. (Oscar, Bernard, Winky)

Johnson was "far" longer, but not Dempsey. Dempsey had 6 successful title defenses in about 4 years before losing to Tunney three years after his fight with Firpo. Three of the years he held the title, he was inactive so we can't count them. I do wonder had Dempsey not been inactive for 3 years, would he have beaten Tunney. Three years is a long time for a Pro fighter to be inactive, especially a Rich Pro Fighter that is Champion. Tunney was good though, no question.




True, and the Dempsey that fought Firpo does not look like the Dempsey that fought Tunney.

Fair enough. I understand your thinking, hope you understand mine.

And Jab, thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Machine, good thoughts in your posts. I'm still not drinking the Sam Langford Kool-Aid, but I'm at least now holding the glass, looking at it. :)


"I think Langford was the greatest fighter we ever had." - Jack Dempsey

"The greatest fighter of them all, bar none, was Sam Langford." - Harry Wills

"Langford was the greatest fighter who ever lived. Sam would have been champion any time Johnson had given him a fight, and Johnson knew it better than anybody. Man! How that baby could hit. Nobody could hit like that. Well, maybe Joe Louis could, but don't forget that Sam only weighed about 160 pounds. Louis was about 195." - Joe Jeannette

"Who's the best fighter I ever saw? That's an easy one. Sam Langford and nobody ever came close to being as good as he was at his peak." - Gunboat Smith

"Now there was a fighter for you. Sam Langford! Yes, sir, in my book he was just about the greatest of them all." - Abe Attell


Just a few examples of how highly Langford was thought of by his peers in the ring (and there's other quotes of similiar nature from that era of fighters), and if you want to question his punching power look to Jeannette's comments above and know that those thoughts were also echoed by Wills, Jack Johnson, Fireman Flynn, Ketchel, and a host of other opponents who felt the power in his punch and spoke of it in the highest terms possible.


Some more quotes by those who were covering the sport and these coming from the most prominant sportswriters of the time and one of the most prominant promoters of the early days;


"Sam was about the best fighting man I have ever watched." - Grantland Rice

"Sam Langford was the greatest fighter, pound for pound, who ever lived." - Hype Igoe

"Langford was probably the best the ring ever saw." - Joe Williams

"Sam Langford was the greatest fighter of the time." - Hugh McIntosh

Etc., etc., etc.

As far as his number of losses go...well, I can tell you that boxrec isn't exactly accurate with a few of their "NWS" (vs. Jeannette, Barry*, etc.) based on the majority opinion of the sportswriters of the time, and it's also worth noting that a number of the official decisions that didn't go Langford's way (losses and draws) were thought of as bad decisions by the press covering the fights.

* Here's one example of quite a few;


"New York, Sept 25--Sam Langford, of Boston, scored a victory over Jim Barry, of Chicago, at the Sharkey Athletic Club here tonight. He outpointed his opponent in every round and several times had the Westerner in a dazed condition.

In the first the negro tripped while backing away from one of Barry's rushes and before he could recover himself Barry struck him a slight right-hand swing on the jaw and felled him. Langford got up in a jiffy and fought back fiercely.

Langford scored a clean knockdown in the second round.

When Barry got up, after he had fallen, the Boston man landed a hard right and left swing to the jaw, and while Barry was reeling from side to side, landed another terrific left-hand swing to the same spot, and Barry struck the floor with a thud.

Langford had the better of the third and fourth rounds. After they had clinched several times in the fifth, Barry landed a hard right-swing on Langford's jaw, but the latter merely grinned and retaliated by three straight jabs on his opponents face and jaw.

Barry was extremely tired and hung on to prevent being knocked out.

Barry showed signs of fatigue in the final round and was content to fight at long range. At this style Langford was much the superior, and landed three blows to Barry's one."

- The Washington Herald, Sept 26th, 1907, and the opinion that Langford got the better of the fight was echoed in the Trenton Evening News, Boston Daily Globe, and even Barry's hometown paper of the Chicago Daily Tribune.


Compare this writeup to the brief and minority (i.e. only differing) opinion in the NY Times, which doesn't even have a full paragraph on the fight and only says that Barry had a "slight advantage", and you have reason to question boxrec's listing of that fight...especially when the NY Times have printed other information on Langford's fights that is contradictory to what everyone else wrote in their papers (I'm speaking of one of the Jeannette fights here), may have been factually incorrect, and gives me the impression that they didn't even have a reporter there covering it.

Anyways, I'm babbling endlessly here, but I could go on about this stuff some more if you have any questions on anything related to Langford.

Bottom line, though, is don't judge a fighter based mostly on what it says on some incomplete* and often times innaccurate internet site from 100 years after Langford was at his best.

* Langford estimates that he had between five and six hundred professional fights, with a former writer by the name of Lud Shahbazian giving him credit for 642 when announcing Langford's death in his column. Both estimates are very likely more accurate to the truth than what boxrec has listed.

After reading Yogi's post (who I appreciate putting that much time in to it) and everybody elses opinion, I hearby officially retract and ammend my previous post regarding the honorable Sam Langford being over-rated.

I learned things about him that the record book could never expound on. And I really do appreciate the good spirit in which the more knowing members here informed me that I was mistaken. You all earned my respect even more.

Sam Langford, from all that I've read here, really was a great fighter. I learned much.
Thanks!

After reading Yogi's post (who I appreciate putting that much time in to it) and everybody elses opinion, I hearby officially retract and ammend my previous post regarding the honorable Sam Langford being over-rated.

I learned things about him that the record book could never expound on. And I really do appreciate the good spirit in which the more knowing members here informed me that I was mistaken. You all earned my respect even more.

Sam Langford, from all that I've read here, really was a great fighter. I learned much.
Thanks!

Cheers, Soupbone, and here's a little poem for you expressing how feared Langford was when he was just about to hit his peak as a fighter;


Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," said Stanley K.,
"Britt has taken me away
And I'm signed to do a play.
Then I'm going to the hay.
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," said Jack the Twin,
"I am careful of my chin
And I'm pretty near all in,
And suicide's a sin.
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," is Papke's wail,
"I'm a lily white and pail
And my life is not for sale;
Why I'd sooner go to jail.
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," said Kid McCoy,
"I'm a pretty game old boy,
But this unrefined employ
I will leave for hoi polloi.
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," said poor old Fitz,
"Though I'd fight for just six bits
Still I haven't lost my wits;
I'll preserve my speckled mits.
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," said Hugo Kelly,
"He would pound me to a jelly
And I'd lose some vermicalli.
Not for me. What ta helli?
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," said Joe da Grim,
"I no like to fight with him
Cause he shutta up my glim
And da chances are to slim.
I'll notta fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not I," Al Kaufman said,
"You are crazy in the head.
Chase yourself and go to bed.
I ain't anxious to be dead.
I'll not fight Sam Langford."

Who'll fight Sam Langford?
"Not us," the low brows cried
And they turned around to hide.
"Nix; the color line is wide,
And we're going to stay inside.
We'll not fight Sam Langford."


- written by William O'Connell McGeehan, circa 1907, which would have been around the time that a few of those fighters (including Langford, who also had support in England as champion) were raising their hands in the air as the successor to Tommy Ryan as world middleweight champion.

It was belived when Langford and Ketchel met on March 27th 1910, Langford had to not look to impressive against Stanley, so he could get his title shot, when they next fought each other. It was also belived Ketchel was that wary of Langofrd power and skills in the ring, he had made people go and spy on Langford in his training camp, to make sure Langford was not training to hard for it or going full out in training.

Langford is also of belived to had the better of Ketchel when they fought, and some class it as a Langford victory. But back then(in that era) some things are not fact, and some say Ketchel was more than holding his own with Langford etc. Alot of boxing people have different views and stories on this fight.

Its just a shame Langford and Ketchel never fought for the Middlweight title as Langford was promised, It is also belived Ketchel wound't agree to a full out bout with Langford either, Ketchel would be shot the same year (1910-10-15)

Here's some article's about the fight
''Langford was at his peak at middleweight when Stanley Ketchel was the world middleweight champion. Nat Fleischer wrote, “One hesitates to say that Ketchel, reknowned deservedly for his gameness, was afraid of Langford. But the fact remains that Stanley had refused several offers to meet Langford in a distance bout.”

They did finally meet in a 6 round no decision affair. The April 28, 1910 Philadelphia Bulletin reported “Sam Langford, of Boston, defeated Stanley Ketchel of Grand Rapids, Mich., in a 6 round bout at the National Club last night.” Langford established a superior jab in the first two rounds. In the third he “shook Ketchel badly with swings to the head.” In the fourth he “twice shook Ketchel with jaw punches and brought the blood from the mouth and nose with well timed jabs.” Langford let up in the last two rounds. “To sum it up, Langford was much the stronger and cleverer and his jabs had a disconcerting effect on Ketchel…the colored man looked to be in pretty good shape at the close, but Ketchel was tired and wild and the sound of the bell was a welcome interruption.” The newspaper verdict, contrary to some later published reports, was in favor of Langford''
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/langford.html

Ketchel and Langford will have to fight again to settle the question of supremacy. They went a hard six-round bout at the National athletic club here and were both on their feet, able to continue, with plenty of strength and aggressiveness when the battle ended, with no decision by the referee. No knockdowns were scored in spite of the terrific hitting power of both men, and while there seems to be no doubt that they tried to do their best , they will probably come together in a longer fight in California next July for a large purse."(Marion Daily Star) Using a poll of 13 NY and Philadelphia newspapers, 7 had Langford ahead, 4 Ketchel, and 2 had it a draw. Thus, the mark of a Langford newspaper win.
Source-BOXREC.

Lennox Lewis is one overrated boxer. "My Legacy", my ass......

Coffroth signed Langford and Ketchel to a longer distance fight (a reported 45 rounder for a overall purse of $30,000 spilt 60/40 to the winner) that was supposed to take place in July 2nd, 1910 in California, but it was eventually a promoter by the name of Sid Hester (with backing from Tom O'Day) who took over the promotion of the fight when the location was moved to Reno. Hester's plan was then to move the date to the 4th of July as part of a morning feature to the Johnson-Jeffires bout later that same day, although Hester would have used a different venue due to Rickard being opposed to the idea.

All for not, though, as it was about a week or so before the fight when Hester announced;

"I am in receipt of authentic information that Ketchel has not been taking proper care of himself and is not now and could not get into proper fighting shape. Rather than burden the people of Reno with a match of this sort, I have decided to wash my hands of the whole affair and call it off. Langford, so far as I know, is in fine condition and would enter the ring willingly. As for Ketchel--well, that's another story."

- statement made by Hester on June 23rd and printed in a number of different sources the next day

And that put the end to any real chance of a legitimate Langford-Ketchel battle, as Ketchel's "not taking proper care of himself" comment from Hester would only touch the surface of what ended up being a downward spiral for Ketchel and his health problems which troubled him until his death.

Worth noting, though, that Ketchel gave mixed signals throughout his time in regards to him facing Langford, as it was less than a year before when both him and Langford were in New York signed to fight in a ten rounder at the Fairmount Athletic Club, only to see the Governor of the state nix the fight within a day or two of it taking place (this would have been Sept of 1909). Had Hughes not put a stop to it, I would think that it almost assuredly would have happened as scheduled.

Langford was a pretty remarkable fighter

i admit i dont know a ton about him , but i do know he was never given a title shot, thats messed up......