The Best there Never was....

[K-DOGG]

Then why did he fight him. You guys say the 20s were awesome and the heavyweight suck now. If they were so good, how the hell did a skinny 160 lbs guy be a major contender in those days. That just shows the good ole days werent so great.

You're kidding, right?


Ever hear of having no other choice becasue you'd be facing starvation or homelessness if you didn't fight?!

[brownpimp88]

You're kidding, right?


Ever hear of having no other choice becasue you'd be facing starvation or homelessness if you didn't fight?!

I kinda feel sorry for harry wills, he beats a guy 12 times and still has to hear people on forums saying that guy was better. Even worse, he couldnt prove that he may have been the real heavyweight champ from 1918-1926.

[THE REAL NINJA]

You're kidding, right?


Ever hear of having no other choice becasue you'd be facing starvation or homelessness if you didn't fight?!

True+ I that man just loved to fight ,hell he fought like 24 years and that's just out of what was recorded who kjnows how many fights he really had .

[THE REAL NINJA]

2000 ring mag has Willis ranked 16th all time and Langford 17th which is higher then John L,Max Schmeling,Max Bear,Patterson,Bowe,Norton,Fitzsimmons,Lewis at the time and Joe Jeanette comes in at 25th . ....I think they both get enough credit as is .

[brownpimp88]

2000 ring mag has Willis ranked 16th all time and Langford 17th which is higher then John L,Max Schmeling,Max Bear,Patterson,Bowe,Norton,Fitzsimmons,Lewis at the time and Joe Jeanette comes in at 25th . ....I think they both get enough credit as is .

Do u really think those magazines have an objective look on reality. Could u possibly tell me that langford would beat lennox lewis and rid**** bowe in a fight, ur not that dumb are you.

[THE REAL NINJA]

Do u really think those magazines have an objective look on reality. Could u possibly tell me that langford would beat lennox lewis and rid**** bowe in a fight, ur not that dumb are you.

That's not always how they are rated, greatness can be judged by many things . My point in posting it was to show that Willis gets credit for what he did . It was in reply to your i feel sorry for him post .....Oh and Willis was 6'4 220lbs yet had a hard time with little 5'6 Langford . That's like Lewis fighting PBF and Floyd lasting to the bell every time + Lang knocked him out once if I remember right .

[K-DOGG]

True+ I that man just loved to fight ,hell he fought like 24 years and that's just out of what was recorded who kjnows how many fights he really had .

Yup. Love of the game an being unable to let go is nothing new. Look at Holyfield.

[K-DOGG]

I kinda feel sorry for harry wills, he beats a guy 12 times and still has to hear people on forums saying that guy was better. Even worse, he couldnt prove that he may have been the real heavyweight champ from 1918-1926.

Harry Wills might have been better; but you can't judge him on the Langford fights. That's all I'm saying. If wills had kicked Langford's ass back in 1910, that's one thing; but he didn't.

As far as him being better than Dempsey, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. It wasn't Dempsey's fault they never met...it was the times.

[Yogi]

As far as Langford being past his best, you can find a number of contemporary reports stating that by 1914 Langford was already "slipping" or other wording describing a decline in his over skill/ability, and those words would be written by those who followed his career in time and had a lot more room for comparision than do we do some 90 years later with our limited viewing of Langford...

And as far as Langford being blind, he lost the eyesight in his left eye during a "fixed fight" with Fred Fulton in the summer of 1917, and I believe I've read in the past that the doctors actually had to take the left eye out at some point and replace it with a glass one. After losing the sight in his left, his sight in his right eye rapidly decreased due to cataracts that formed, and it was in Jan of 1918 when he became "legally blind" in that eye, as well, due to the fact that he could then only see a few feet in front of him. He had a few operations to try to correct his vision in his right eye, and while some gave him some very momentary relief, none proved successful for any length of time (the last effort to say his eyesight came in the mid 30's, I believe, which by that time Langford had long since been in the dark).

You guys could check the records to see how that relates to Langford & Wills' matchups, but speaking of Wills, I'm certainly not going to fault anyone who thinks Wills was the slightly better heavyweight over Langford. In fact, when I came up with that earlier list I was quite tempted to put Wills in the #1 spot and I actually did start typing his name there before changing it to Langford. Along with Jackson (who doesn't have the win resume of the other two), to me Langford & Wills are the standout contenders in the historical sense of things, as all three of them seem to have the edge over others in the amount of respect they garnered during their respective times, how they were spoken of by both their peers and in the press, and things of that nature...All three of them would also feature in my own personal ranking of the top 20 (or top 25 at the least for Jackson) heavyweights in history.

[THE REAL NINJA]

As far as Langford being past his best, you can find a number of contemporary reports stating that by 1914 Langford was already "slipping" or other wording describing a decline in his over skill/ability, and those words would be written by those who followed his career in time and had a lot more room for comparision than do we do some 90 years later with our limited viewing of Langford...

And as far as Langford being blind, he lost the eyesight in his left eye during a "fixed fight" with Fred Fulton in the summer of 1917, and I believe I've read in the past that the doctors actually had to take the left eye out at some point and replace it with a glass one. After losing the sight in his left, his sight in his right eye rapidly decreased due to cataracts that formed, and it was in Jan of 1918 when he became "legally blind" in that eye, as well, due to the fact that he could then only see a few feet in front of him. He had a few operations to try to correct his vision in his right eye, and while some gave him some very momentary relief, none proved successful for any length of time (the last effort to say his eyesight came in the mid 30's, I believe, which by that time Langford had long since been in the dark).

You guys could check the records to see how that relates to Langford & Wills' matchups, but speaking of Wills, I'm certainly not going to fault anyone who thinks Wills was the slightly better heavyweight over Langford. In fact, when I came up with that earlier list I was quite tempted to put Wills in the #1 spot and I actually did start typing his name there before changing it to Langford. Along with Jackson (who doesn't have the win resume of the other two), to me Langford & Wills are the standout contenders in the historical sense of things, as all three of them seem to have the edge over others in the amount of respect they garnered during their respective times, how they were spoken of by both their peers and in the press, and things of that nature...All three of them would also feature in my own personal ranking of the top 20 (or top 25 at the least for Jackson) heavyweights in history.

Hell yeah I wish Jackson would get more credit ,remember I made a thread about him http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...=peter+jackson