What fighter do you think gets to much credit and gets overrated in legacy terms?

[Southpaw16BF]

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.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

[Southpaw16BF]

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.

[JAB5239]

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.

[Southpaw16BF]

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.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

[JAB5239]

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.

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.

[JAB5239]

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.

[hunkysoupbone]

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.

[TheGreatA]

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.