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

[JAB5239]

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

[Southpaw16BF]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[JAB5239]

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.

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

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

[StarshipTrooper]

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

[Southpaw16BF]

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.

[StarshipTrooper]

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 ****** because he lost to Kevin McBride?

Poet

[Terry A]

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.