View Full Version : How did Sam Langford..


boxerca
12-24-2009, 08:57 AM
.. gain over 60 pounds throughout his career and still be in good shape?

The earliest recorded weight of his that I could find was that he weighed in at 140 when he fought Joe Gans in 1903 (he was around 20, at the time). In 1916, he weighed in at around 200 pounds (he was around 33).

How is it possible for a man to gain over 60 pounds, throughout his career?

geribeetus
12-24-2009, 10:46 AM
Langford was a phenom. His power struck fear even into Jack Dempsey. Pictures of him at heavier weights show him to be quite muscular but not too bulky. He was genetically gifted the same way Tyson was I guess, but perhaps moreso.

From the footage I've seen, Sam Langford was only vulnerable to being hit with a jab. Other than that, he was a master stalker who used his range and methodical defense to break down men much naturally larger.

mrboxer
12-24-2009, 10:52 AM
langford is overrated,all this talk,what has he done that is so spectacular:boxing:

sonnyboyx2
12-24-2009, 11:20 AM
.. gain over 60 pounds throughout his career and still be in good shape?

The earliest recorded weight of his that I could find was that he weighed in at 140 when he fought Joe Gans in 1903 (he was around 20, at the time). In 1916, he weighed in at around 200 pounds (he was around 33).

How is it possible for a man to gain over 60 pounds, throughout his career?

he borrowed some steroids from Pacquiao & Mayweather

JAB5239
12-24-2009, 02:13 PM
langford is overrated,all this talk,what has he done that is so spectacular:boxing:

He beat top fighters from 135 to heavyweight. Some of the best fighters in history.

GJC
12-24-2009, 02:52 PM
.. gain over 60 pounds throughout his career and still be in good shape?

The earliest recorded weight of his that I could find was that he weighed in at 140 when he fought Joe Gans in 1903 (he was around 20, at the time). In 1916, he weighed in at around 200 pounds (he was around 33).

How is it possible for a man to gain over 60 pounds, throughout his career?
I would say that boxingrec isn't the most accurate of record keepers and also in those days I don't think the weigh ins were always as precise as they are now. Lot of guys used to weigh in wearing their clothes etc.

aristotlemoses
12-24-2009, 04:17 PM
Me personally I put on 50 lbs since highschool when i was 18 now 24 and I am not fat at all. I kinda just filled out more. im like 180 area bordering on 6'1

boxerca
12-24-2009, 04:35 PM
Me personally I put on 50 lbs since highschool when i was 18 now 24 and I am not fat at all. I kinda just filled out more. im like 180 area bordering on 6'1

Well that is interesting. I'm not sure how it's done but yeah. The thing with Langford, though, was that he was only 5'6 and weighed around 140, when he was 20. That's not a skinny figure. It's pretty normal. But when he was around 33 he weighed in at around 200 pounds. For a man who's 5'6, 200 pounds is a lot. And his looked all natural.

So I just wanna know how he can go from being full or nearly full grown to just adding 60 pounds of all of a sudden. I doubt it all had to do with weights, since they were frowned upon, back in the day.

GJC
12-24-2009, 06:46 PM
For a man who's 5'6, 200 pounds is a lot.

It would classify him as obese I believe!

Personally I have my doubts that Langford ever weighed more than 170 ish but thats only an opinion.

boxerca
12-24-2009, 07:29 PM
It would classify him as obese I believe!

Personally I have my doubts that Langford ever weighed more than 170 ish but thats only an opinion.

Here's two pictures of Sam Langford against Joe Jeanette on December 20, 1913:

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/2068/sl1.png

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/590/sl2.png

Two months earlier he weighed in at 199, when he fought Joe Jeanette, at MSG, in a separate fight.

Two months after he weighed in at 200 against a man named Bill Watkins.

I'm guessing that his fighting weight, for that time period, was around 200.

Yogi
12-27-2009, 11:50 AM
Two months earlier he weighed in at 199, when he fought Joe Jeanette, at MSG, in a separate fight.

He was fat at that weight or anything close to it. To put it bluntly.

Here's a couple of quotes from the NY Times' coverage (from Oct 4th, 1913) of the fight you're alluding to here and their descriptions of Langford's condition ;

"But Sam came into the ring under the handicap of twenty pounds of surplus flesh."

"Langford, when fit, scales at 180 pounds and last night he tipped the beam at 199 1/4 pounds. He has been training two weeks, and he climbed into the ring last night with a waist line that showed plainly how far he lacked condition. Rolls of flesh stood out above his belt."

Those are typical descriptions of Langford's condition any time you see him weighing in around that range from any fight. Often he wasn't in any sort of shape.

To go back to your first post, Clay Moyle (in his recent book on Langford...very good read I might add) has him listed as weighing 125 pounds just before he embarked on his pro career in 1902 as a 16 year-old (not 19 or 20). This would have been a 16 year-old kid, who, because he largely had to fend for himself after leaving home, was simply going hungry for much of the time. Factor in his age at the time and how under fed he was, it's not hard to see why he added natural weight to his frame once he matured and started eating better.

BennyST
12-27-2009, 10:04 PM
As Yogi so well pointed out, good to see you back mate btw, Langford was really only a WW to SMW/LHW under today's classes.

By around twenty he was weighing in around the JWW to WW limit and at his prime he was only a MW and later on up to a LHW, though of course he was fighting guys that were often bigger. It's not as much as it's usually made out to be.

His speed, power, chin, and defense and inside skill made fighting bigger guys much easier than it otherwise would have been though. He was an amazing fighter.

JFB629
12-28-2009, 03:06 PM
When Langford fought Jeannete and weighed in at just over 199 pounds. Langford was in extremely pour condition and had rolls of fat around his midsection for the fight.

In the fight the extra weight would take it's toll on Sam, as he begin to tired rather quickley. Sam blamed the huge weight gain on being idle in Austraila and was now finding it hard to shift off.

Around this time Sam was also defeated by Gunboat Smith and admitted he didnt do much training for the bout. Reports also suggested Langford was as high as 30 pounds overweight in the bout.

He would avenege the Smith defeat down the line, but in reality it was fighter Sam should never of lost to.

Smith would later go on to Langford was the best Heavyweight he ever saw.

Langford said years later in a interview that after realising he would never be Heavyweight Champion no matter how good he was, held the attitude of whats the point of training, I aint going to get nowere. Langford admitted from here on he didn't take care of his figure and got nice and fat. This period was around 1915/1916. Lang

Langford had also become extremley frustrated with fighting the same fighters over and over again.

phallus
12-28-2009, 10:16 PM
I would say that boxingrec isn't the most accurate of record keepers and also in those days I don't think the weigh ins were always as precise as they are now. Lot of guys used to weigh in wearing their clothes etc.

jack johnson's weight was usually a little less than what boxrec would say, when jack made it to the big time they added a few lbs because he was always smaller than his opponents. he weighed a lot less than jeffries and still kicked his ass


He was fat at that weight or anything close to it. To put it bluntly.

Here's a couple of quotes from the NY Times' coverage (from Oct 4th, 1913) of the fight you're alluding to here and their descriptions of Langford's condition ;

"But Sam came into the ring under the handicap of twenty pounds of surplus flesh."

"Langford, when fit, scales at 180 pounds and last night he tipped the beam at 199 1/4 pounds. He has been training two weeks, and he climbed into the ring last night with a waist line that showed plainly how far he lacked condition. Rolls of flesh stood out above his belt."

Those are typical descriptions of Langford's condition any time you see him weighing in around that range from any fight. Often he wasn't in any sort of shape.

To go back to your first post, Clay Moyle (in his recent book on Langford...very good read I might add) has him listed as weighing 125 pounds just before he embarked on his pro career in 1902 as a 16 year-old (not 19 or 20). This would have been a 16 year-old kid, who, because he largely had to fend for himself after leaving home, was simply going hungry for much of the time. Factor in his age at the time and how under fed he was, it's not hard to see why he added natural weight to his frame once he matured and started eating better.

yeah, sam would be prime at around 160 - 175 lbs... good to see u again, Yogi