The Unpopular Opinion thread.

[Terry A]

Langford NOT greater then Harry Wills

31 AND had had over 115 fights.

Poet

Poet,
Over the years, I've tried hard to figure out exactly what it was that guys saw about Langford to warrant being called "great". But try as I may, I just can't figure it out.

Follow this for a minute.....

So Harry Wills beats Sam langford 13-14 times over their careers & that's "explained" away by saying, well, Sam was "31 AND had had over 115 fights."

Ok, so if that's a concession that he was somehwat washed up, over the hill or had seen his better days by then, then let's cut off that later part of his career from age 31 on & just examine his earlier career. (Although every other fighter is judged as a whole over their entire career. many others were NOT over-the-hill at a mere 31)

In Sam's 1st 16 fights, his opponants combined record was 25-82, w/ numerous draws & NC's.

When Sam Langford was 29-3, he was KO'ed in 8 vs Joe Jeanette, who was 3-1-1 at the time they fought.

Just to help me along here, exactly what causes you & others to rank him so high over his contemporaries? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here, I'm really lost on what some guys see in his credentials.

From when he started till he was 31, exactly who did he beat that puts him in the upper echolon of great fighters?

Name the fighters he beat that causes him to be rated so high. And, of those he beat, how many of those same men beat HIM in return or other matches?

Please don't say the decisons went against him because he was a black fighter. Most everybody he fought was also black.

He seems to have largely made his reputation beating up Sam McVea & Joe Jeanette, when they weren't beating him up also. Wills has an overwhelming win % against Langford. When you do look over his record, look at all the lesser fighters who beat him.

He did beat Joe Gans when they were both Jr Weletweights.

I have nothing at all against Sam Langford. I actually like him as a fighter because he fought on when blind & had loads of heart. But all them black fighters (Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Peter Jackson, Langford) had equally hard lives & hard careers. They basically beat on each other. But of all them guys, Harry Wills was (in my own unpopular opinion) the best of them.

In a head-to-head match up, here's some stats....

Harry Wills 6'2' record of 68-9-3 w/ 54KOs

Sam Langford 5'6 1/2 with a record of 178-48-40 w/ 129 KO's.

Their records are approx. The Ring Record Book, BoxingRec.com & other magazine articles over the years all give varying numbers, much like Archie Moore's KO record numbers vary.

Poet, I'm asking you this because you seem to be up on Langford, plus you usually give in depth answers. So who did Sam Langford beat that made him so great?

[fitefanSHO]

Kellerman does what we're all doing right now....but gets paid very well for it.

Rafael? He's become rather biased, and appears to be a Top Rank shill.

Kellerman does a hell of a lot more than post boxing on a message board and as far as Rafael, I can at least accept those as legit criticisms, usually people who are critical of him fail to do even that, instead preferring to insult him personally for being heavy. What they almost all have in common tho is a jealousy that shows itself rather transparently, at least IMO

[Barn]

Sure Barn.....

No way Bob Fitzsimmons was an ATG at heavyweight. At heavyweight, he would not make my all-time top 100. He was basically a super-middleweight or small lightheavyweight who solar-plexed Jim Corbett!

Sam Langford, compared to Harry Wills, gets too much respect & Wills not enough. Harry Wills was the better fighter of the two, but some guys are enamered with ol' Sam. That's OK, he was a very good fighter. But when they're on his bandwagon, why don't they give the same type credit to Wills, who beat Langford what, 13-14 times?

The defense rests....

Didn't realise you were referring to his HW CV.

[jabsRstiff]

Kellerman does a hell of a lot more than post boxing on a message board and as far as Rafael, I can at least accept those as legit criticisms, usually people who are critical of him fail to do even that, instead preferring to insult him personally for being heavy. What they almost all have in common tho is a jealousy that shows itself rather transparently, at least IMO

What I meant is...Kellerman is paid to discuss boxing, whether it's what's happening right in front of him or has already happened. He's living a dream, actually.

When people don't like someone or what they do, the avenue to personal criticism/insults opens right up. I'm sure when Rafael says something a fan agrees with, they stop thinkig about his weight.

[Jim Jeffries]

Prime Ken Norton beats Larry Holmes and gives even pre ban Ali fits (though I give Ali the edge here.)

Floyd Mayweather Jr holds his own against pretty much anyone in history from 130-140.

[StarshipTrooper]

Poet,
Over the years, I've tried hard to figure out exactly what it was that guys saw about Langford to warrant being called "great". But try as I may, I just can't figure it out.

Follow this for a minute.....

So Harry Wills beats Sam langford 13-14 times over their careers & that's "explained" away by saying, well, Sam was "31 AND had had over 115 fights."

Ok, so if that's a concession that he was somehwat washed up, over the hill or had seen his better days by then, then let's cut off that later part of his career from age 31 on & just examine his earlier career. (Although every other fighter is judged as a whole over their entire career. many others were NOT over-the-hill at a mere 31)

In Sam's 1st 16 fights, his opponants combined record was 25-82, w/ numerous draws & NC's.

When Sam Langford was 29-3, he was KO'ed in 8 vs Joe Jeanette, who was 3-1-1 at the time they fought.

Just to help me along here, exactly what causes you & others to rank him so high over his contemporaries? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here, I'm really lost on what some guys see in his credentials.

From when he started till he was 31, exactly who did he beat that puts him in the upper echolon of great fighters?

Name the fighters he beat that causes him to be rated so high. And, of those he beat, how many of those same men beat HIM in return or other matches?

Please don't say the decisons went against him because he was a black fighter. Most everybody he fought was also black.

He seems to have largely made his reputation beating up Sam McVea & Joe Jeanette, when they weren't beating him up also. Wills has an overwhelming win % against Langford. When you do look over his record, look at all the lesser fighters who beat him.

He did beat Joe Gans when they were both Jr Weletweights.

I have nothing at all against Sam Langford. I actually like him as a fighter because he fought on when blind & had loads of heart. But all them black fighters (Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Peter Jackson, Langford) had equally hard lives & hard careers. They basically beat on each other. But of all them guys, Harry Wills was (in my own unpopular opinion) the best of them.

In a head-to-head match up, here's some stats....

Harry Wills 6'2' record of 68-9-3 w/ 54KOs

Sam Langford 5'6 1/2 with a record of 178-48-40 w/ 129 KO's.

Their records are approx. The Ring Record Book, BoxingRec.com & other magazine articles over the years all give varying numbers, much like Archie Moore's KO record numbers vary.

Poet, I'm asking you this because you seem to be up on Langford, plus you usually give in depth answers. So who did Sam Langford beat that made him so great?

In a way you've already partially made my response for me when you said "They basically beat on each other". This is one of the things that makes just looking at won-loss records from that era misleading. Imagine a scenario where guys like Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Liston all fought each other a dozen times each. Don't you think that all of them would most likely have more losses on their respective records then they wound up with? Now look at the number of fights someone like Langford had and check out the dates on those fights: Those guys racked up fight totals like that by sometimes fighting multiple times every month. When a fighter does that simple statistical probability says you're going to rack up some losses.....the odds get more and more favorable that you're going to have a bad night at some point and lose. The more you fight the greater those odds get. That's not even taking into account situations where they're fighting sick, fighting with injuries, fighting malnourished, ect.....all because they need that purse from the fight to buy dinner that night. Now look at Wills' record: He had fewer then 1/3 the fights that Langford had. His odds of having a bad night for the above reasons was significantly less than Langford's were.

Now specifically about Langford. Langford was for all intents and purposes a Middleweight (or it can be argued a Welterweight), and he was fighting and holding his own against legitimate Heavies. Wills, on the otherhand, was a legitimate Heavyweight.....and a past-prime, blind in one eye, Middleweight Langford KOed him in their 2nd and 4th fights. This is the equivalent of Carlos Monzon fighting Larry Holmes 4 times and knocking him out twice. Think about that. Hard to imagine isn't it? Yet Langford actually did that.

Part of the problem is that people do not look at these eras in context (and I'm not singling you out for this). All too often people evaluate fighters from back then from the perspective and context of, say, the 1980s to the present. From a time when fighters are protected because having an "0" means money. When fighters don't fight anywhere near as often, certainly not multiple times a month. When fighters aren't fighting so they can eat that night. When they top fighters are one and done with their best rivals instead of fighting them a dozen times. All of which results in far fewer losses on their won-loss record. You simply can't evaluate the resume of someone from the first decade of the 20th century the same way you would the resume of a fighter from the 1980s or 1990s.....it just doesn't work.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

Kellerman does a hell of a lot more than post boxing on a message board and as far as Rafael, I can at least accept those as legit criticisms, usually people who are critical of him fail to do even that, instead preferring to insult him personally for being heavy. What they almost all have in common tho is a jealousy that shows itself rather transparently, at least IMO

Why on Earth with anybody be jealous of a fat **** who doesn't know how to score a fight? :thinking9:

Poet

[IronDanHamza]

In a way you've already partially made my response for me when you said "They basically beat on each other". This is one of the things that makes just looking at won-loss records from that era misleading. Imagine a scenario where guys like Ali, Frazier, Foreman, and Liston all fought each other a dozen times each. Don't you think that all of them would most likely have more losses on their respective records then they wound up with? Now look at the number of fights someone like Langford had and check out the dates on those fights: Those guys racked up fight totals like that by sometimes fighting multiple times every month. When a fighter does that simple statistical probability says you're going to rack up some losses.....the odds get more and more favorable that you're going to have a bad night at some point and lose. The more you fight the greater those odds get. That's not even taking into account situations where they're fighting sick, fighting with injuries, fighting malnourished, ect.....all because they need that purse from the fight to buy dinner that night. Now look at Wills' record: He had fewer then 1/3 the fights that Langford had. His odds of having a bad night for the above reasons was significantly less than Langford's were.

Now specifically about Langford. Langford was for all intents and purposes a Middleweight (or it can be argued a Welterweight), and he was fighting and holding his own against legitimate Heavies. Wills, on the otherhand, was a legitimate Heavyweight.....and a past-prime, blind in one eye, Middleweight Langford KOed him in their 2nd and 4th fights. This is the equivalent of Carlos Monzon fighting Larry Holmes 4 times and knocking him out twice. Think about that. Hard to imagine isn't it? Yet Langford actually did that.

Part of the problem is that people do not look at these eras in context (and I'm not singling you out for this). All too often people evaluate fighters from back then from the perspective and context of, say, the 1980s to the present. From a time when fighters are protected because having an "0" means money. When fighters don't fight anywhere near as often, certainly not multiple times a month. When fighters aren't fighting so they can eat that night. When they top fighters are one and done with their best rivals instead of fighting them a dozen times. All of which results in far fewer losses on their won-loss record. You simply can't evaluate the resume of someone from the first decade of the 20th century the same way you would the resume of a fighter from the 1980s or 1990s.....it just doesn't work.

Poet

Beautiful post.

[The Surgeon]

Good question on Buffer Surg. I "Googled" it & came up with a range of $20,000-$25,000 per "big event". Which is going to sound real unpopular to all of us who did much harder work for far less money just because we didn't come up with his idea before he did!

$25,000 to say a few scripted words before sitting ringside for the best fights in the world!? Muther ****er!

I make £25,000 a YEAR and work my nuts off! Meh whata u gonna do...

Like i said i agree wit u but i will miss him when he's gone.

[BigStereotype]

People who "don't like" Max Kellerman are just jealous of him, and want his gig.

People who insult Dan Rafael because of his weight are equally as jealous for the same reason.

I, personally, am a fan of Kellerman's. Mostly because of his old radio show in New York. He's the reason that I'm on the path I'm on, no joke.

But someone at school explained one reason that he doesn't like Max and I definitely understand. Kellerman has a tendency to ignore what's going on what's right in front of him and talk too much about the "big picture." He'll talk about the long-term ramifications of the fight, what went into making the fight, why each opponent is the kind of guy the other would or wouldn't want to face...all while the action is going on. That stuff is really good and pertinent before and after the fight is over, but he will sometimes miss the trees for the forest as it were.

Then there are people who are just anti-Semitic. It's sad but it's true.

Dan Rafael on the other hand...he's kind of a tool.