''I was afraid of Sam Langford''-Jack Dempsey

[sonnyboyx2]

Maybe. Langford certainly would have been the most qualified fighter Dempsey had ever faced, and has a better HW resume than any boxer that Dempsey ever met. Certainly when the original meeting was mooted, Dempsey would have been the one getting murdered and knew it.



"Far from it" is a ridiculous thing to say. I say any p4p list that has him outside the top 4 is not good. Langford beat great fighters from lightweight-heavyweight. I think he's the greatest that ever lived personally, and although that's a matter for opinion, "far from it" is genuinely objectionable IMO.



Charley Burley was forgotten by history for a spell, so was Elbows McFadden, so was Jack McAuliffe, so was Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, NP Jack Dempsey, these men are now getting their due for a variety of reasons, not least emerging footage and the internet as a research tool. "Langford wasn't great because he didn't receive coverage" is a ludicrous argument, the worst kind of circular logic.

People who saw both Louis and Langford thought Langford was a reasonable pick. I think Louis is a better HW, but I respect the viewpoint of guys like Charlie Rose a historian who saw BOTH FIGHTERS and thought Louis was #2.

Langford's reputation slipped when his generation of journalists died off. He's now reclaiming his rightful place near the top of boxing's mountain.

That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous.. Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote to appeal to the non boxing fan, its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

[JAB5239]

That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous.. Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote to appeal to the non boxing fan, its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

With all due respect Sonny I have read that book. What parts are you claiming are fictional?

[Greatest1942]

Dempsey would have murdered Langford... Greatest1942 is talking like Langford was the greatest fighter in the history of boxing when the reality of it is that he was far from it, only yesterday he said that no one knows about Sam Langford which is laughable.. Langford was no doubt a great fighter yet his place in boxing history is rightly exactly where it should be, He has not been overlooked because Historians and writers had/have never heard of him, almost every boxing book pre 1960 would have a chapter devoted to "The Boston Tar Baby" yet to claim he would beat Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier etc is simply taking it too far because the great writer's from the turn of the century never thought him capable of doing so and to try to put Sam on a level above Ray Robinson is in all honesty "going a step to far"

Ya, you go and tell them Sonny tell Nat, Charley Rose, Jack dempsey , Harry Wiillis, Hype Igoe whoever thought that "Sam was the best we ever had". You go and tell them. It won't suit your biased agenmda if you actually look at their rankings and the regard with which each of them held Sam. Sam was very respected by all his peers and contemporaries . May be you are not reading what I have kept posting.

Every writer worth their salt when writing about Sam had nothing but praise. The words of Gunboat Smith and Jim Flynn are anything but random.

Charley Rose saw Sam, Louis and Dempsey and had him at #1. So thought a lot of fighters and writers of the period. Hype Igeo who saw all the old timers had Sam as #1 P4P. And I will say that again Sonny you know nothing about Sam, some of your statements are plain ignorant.

Almost every great writer from the turn of the century thought so. Almost every fighter of that period thought that from 1909 to 1913 Sam would have beaten Jack Johnson and Johnson did blatantly duck him.

Here goes another article from the period showing what people thought about Sam

December 27, 1913 – The Winnipeg Tribune published quotes from the Director of French Boxing, Mr. Vienne. Mr. Vienne had proclaimed the fight between Jeannette and Langford as a world’s championship contest. He explained his reasoning for doing so as follows:

‘People say to me, ‘If a world’s boxing championship is organized between two qualified men, why is the winner of the title not entitled to hold if forever?’ I reply, not in words, but with facts, clear and distinct, and then ask the public to judge. The title held by Jack Johnson is held vacant because it is not admissable in sport for a man to legitimately hold all his life, or at least as long as he pleases, a title which he obstinately refuses to defend against qualified aspirants. Nobody can contest that principle. Now, I have repeatedly offered Jack Johnson an opportunity of defending his title in Paris, under the usual conditions of a participation in the receipts, with a guarantee of $25,000, then $30,000. Jack Johnson has always refused.

In an interview Jack Johnson had in Paris with Victor Breyer, then my associate, and later with Leon See, Director of Boxing and Boxers, he made the same public declaration which remains still without denial. ‘I will not box again, ever for a million.’ Since coming to Paris, Jack Johnson refused an engagement to meet with me. He wouldn’t come himself, but his representative came, only to declare to me that Johnson did not wish really to meet a capable adversary in order to maintain his title, but only adversaries of a secondary nature. Under those conditions no one can be expected to submit to Johnson’s fantastic (financial) demands. The sporting public has ever right to rebel and place the title open for public competition that which the holder, because it is too much trouble, does not wish to defend.”

[Greatest1942]

Ya, you go and tell them Sonny tell Nat, Charley Rose, Jack dempsey , Harry Wiillis, Hype Igoe whoever thought that "Sam was the best we ever had". You go and tell them. It won't suit your biased agenmda if you actually look at their rankings and the regard with which each of them held Sam. Sam was very respected by all his peers and contemporaries . May be you are not reading what I have kept posting.

Every writer worth their salt when writing about Sam had nothing but praise. The words of Gunboat Smith and Jim Flynn are anything but random.

Charley Rose saw Sam, Louis and Dempsey and had him at #1. So thought a lot of fighters and writers of the period. Hype Igeo who saw all the old timers had Sam as #1 P4P. And I will say that again Sonny you know nothing about Sam, some of your statements are plain ignorant.

Almost every great writer from the turn of the century thought so. Almost every fighter of that period thought that from 1909 to 1913 Sam would have beaten Jack Johnson and Johnson did blatantly duck him.

Here goes another article from the period showing what people thought about Sam

December 27, 1913 – The Winnipeg Tribune published quotes from the Director of French Boxing, Mr. Vienne. Mr. Vienne had proclaimed the fight between Jeannette and Langford as a world’s championship contest. He explained his reasoning for doing so as follows:

‘People say to me, ‘If a world’s boxing championship is organized between two qualified men, why is the winner of the title not entitled to hold if forever?’ I reply, not in words, but with facts, clear and distinct, and then ask the public to judge. The title held by Jack Johnson is held vacant because it is not admissable in sport for a man to legitimately hold all his life, or at least as long as he pleases, a title which he obstinately refuses to defend against qualified aspirants. Nobody can contest that principle. Now, I have repeatedly offered Jack Johnson an opportunity of defending his title in Paris, under the usual conditions of a participation in the receipts, with a guarantee of $25,000, then $30,000. Jack Johnson has always refused.

In an interview Jack Johnson had in Paris with Victor Breyer, then my associate, and later with Leon See, Director of Boxing and Boxers, he made the same public declaration which remains still without denial. ‘I will not box again, ever for a million.’ Since coming to Paris, Jack Johnson refused an engagement to meet with me. He wouldn’t come himself, but his representative came, only to declare to me that Johnson did not wish really to meet a capable adversary in order to maintain his title, but only adversaries of a secondary nature. Under those conditions no one can be expected to submit to Johnson’s fantastic (financial) demands. The sporting public has ever right to rebel and place the title open for public competition that which the holder, because it is too much trouble, does not wish to defend.”

I am posting all other quotes that i might nothave posted till now made by people who had actually seen him live. Here are some of them

Nat Fleischer said that “Sam Langford was one of the hardest punchers of all time, and certainly must be ranked amoung the top 10 heavyweights of all time. I wouldn’t call him as many have, the greatest heavyweight, but he does merit a place among the top ten. I saw him fight five times, against Harry Wills, Battling Jim Johnson, Sam McVey , Joe Jeannette, and Philadelphia Jack O’Brien. He was not only a terrific hitter but he was also a good boxer. He could even stun a man by hitting him on the shoulder or arms.”

In a Ring article in 1931 Gunboat Smith said about Langford, “Man, if old Sam were in his prime today, what he wouldn’t do to these heavyweights! There wouldn’t be any need of judges or referee, or even timekeeper. He hit me on the top of the head and I thought the roof had caved in. If he landed on the button, it was a good quick night.”

Jimmy Wilde, ex-flyweight champion of the world, James Butler of the London Daily Herald, and Victor Breyer, the “father” of boxing in France each named Sam Langford as the top heavyweight in their opinions.

Norman Clark in one of his books wrote “On the whole, I think Langford was the most tremendous hitter in the Ring at this time; for, whereas Johnson would not, as a rule, let the heavy stuff fly until he had worn the man down, Sam always waded right in and immediately let go punches heavy enough to drop anyone. Of course, he had to work up his punch to an extent, however, and this he usually did on the giant Negro, Bob Armstrong, whom he had training with him. As he sparred with Armstrong, every now and again he would give him a dig “downstairs” that would have the big fellow gasping, and, to keep moving, he would then shadow box for a short time before coming back to resume operations. There would be a few more exchanges, then whop! In would go another one to the body, and exclaim, “Oh”! He’s got cramp”, Sam would do a little more shadow-boxing: and so, and so on. (p.106)

Clark also marveled at Sam’s quickness, “For working up speed Langford had Jimmy Walsh, the bantamweight champion of the world, with him. The pair used to box together lightly, but at a great pace, and I was surprised to find that even in this sort of work Sam was every bit as fast and clever as Walsh himself (p.108)”


Great lightweight king, Frank Erne, when asked in the 1950’s what he thought about Langford replied: “I’d pick him to knock out Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano. When he was not under wraps, he was a ring marvel.”

British sportswriter and author, Trevor Wignall, wrote in his 1938 book “I Knew Them All” that he did not agree that Joe Louis was comparable with either Jack Johnson or Sam Langford, but that Joe was unquestionably the finest black heavyweight the post-war years had supplied.

Minneapolis sports writer George Barton named Sam the greatest light heavyweight of all time.

American sportswriter and author, Edward Van Every, always thought that Sam Langford was the greatest Negro heavyweight that he ever saw.

Hype Igoe, well known boxing writer of the New York Journal proclaimed Sam the greatest fighter, pound for pound, who ever lived. Joe Williams, respected sports columnist of the New York World Telegram said Langford was probably the best the ring ever saw, and the great Grantland Rice described Sam as “about the best fighting man I’ve ever watched.”

looks like a lot of people from those times, actually thought Sam was the best of those times. As I told it won't suit your agenda Sonny.

[Greatest1942]

Maybe. Langford certainly would have been the most qualified fighter Dempsey had ever faced, and has a better HW resume than any boxer that Dempsey ever met. Certainly when the original meeting was mooted, Dempsey would have been the one getting murdered and knew it.



"Far from it" is a ridiculous thing to say. I say any p4p list that has him outside the top 4 is not good. Langford beat great fighters from lightweight-heavyweight. I think he's the greatest that ever lived personally, and although that's a matter for opinion, "far from it" is genuinely objectionable IMO.



Charley Burley was forgotten by history for a spell, so was Elbows McFadden, so was Jack McAuliffe, so was Holman Williams, Lloyd Marshall, NP Jack Dempsey, these men are now getting their due for a variety of reasons, not least emerging footage and the internet as a research tool. "Langford wasn't great because he didn't receive coverage" is a ludicrous argument, the worst kind of circular logic.

People who saw both Louis and Langford thought Langford was a reasonable pick. I think Louis is a better HW, but I respect the viewpoint of guys like Charlie Rose a historian who saw BOTH FIGHTERS and thought Louis was #2.

Langford's reputation slipped when his generation of journalists died off. He's now reclaiming his rightful place near the top of boxing's mountain.

To put matters into perspective when Jack was asked to fight Gunboat Smith instead of Sam , he thought that it was better to the point that he felt that later on he could beat Gunboat, but as for fighting Sam is concerned he never really could envision himself beating him.

At that time Dempsey would have been murdered and he knew it.

[Greatest1942]

180 langford vs 210 johnson as a maybe, 180 langford vs 190 dempsey i see as a maybe, but a 180 langford vs 200 louis aint happening.

I don't have many objections to this.

[McGrain]

Frankly, this post is an embarrassment. Your continued assertion that Langford's - and that, therefore, all other forgotten (for a very, very, short period of time) greats - are responsible for their own eclipse is an embarrassment, and one that only the internet affords. However pitiful, I will engage, one by one.

That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous..

Why?

Marshall, for example, was left out of Bob Mee's top 500, all time. The very idea of his being left out of his top 500 all time now is ridiculous: reason - re-appraisal, footage emerging. Marshal is now regarded as the equal, near equal of Burley and Willimas, NOT the case up until around 1995.

Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote

You have claimed that Murderer's Row is a "fiction". This is an astonishing allegation. What evidence do you have to support it, and what evidence do you have to support the refutation of Burley's Boxrec record? I would like specifics, what specifically about this book is "fiction"? Otty is a contactable and involved member of the boxing community, I will be most interested to hear this response. What lies has Otty told?

Furthermore, what lies has Rosenfeld told? The recently deceased Rosenfeld wrote his own book on this subject and confirmed much of what Otty has said. Have you read this book? What lies do you think Rosenfeld has told?

to appeal to the non boxing fan

That is ridiculous. What non-boxing fans are likely to hunt down these specialised boxing books?

its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

I thought you were an interesting thinker who might have something genuinely new to offer...this post is an embarrassment based upon total fiction. I'm dissappointed.

[NChristo]

That statemant that Burley, McAuliffe, Williams, Marshall was forgotten is ridiculous.. Many of them are today glorified as world-beaters who was avoided by every fighter in history due to the fictional book "Murderers Row" which is fiction wrote to appeal to the non boxing fan, its kinda like the movies Hurricane` & Raging Bull` which was both glorified and in no way based on true actual facts.

Actually Budd Schulberg labeled the boxers the Murderers Row in his book "Sparring with Hemingway and other legends of the fight game" and he goes into how they was avoided and such, the "fictional"(?) book "Charley Burley and the Black Murderers Row" just goes into a bit more detail.

History shows the the boxers were avoided and there's evidence for it.

[Greatest1942]

Frankly, this post is an embarrassment. Your continued assertion that Langford's - and that, therefore, all other forgotten (for a very, very, short period of time) greats - are responsible for their own eclipse is an embarrassment, and one that only the internet affords. However pitiful, I will engage, one by one.



Why?

Marshall, for example, was left out of Bob Mee's top 500, all time. The very idea of his being left out of his top 500 all time now is ridiculous: reason - re-appraisal, footage emerging. Marshal is now regarded as the equal, near equal of Burley and Willimas, NOT the case up until around 1995.



You have claimed that Murderer's Row is a "fiction". This is an astonishing allegation. What evidence do you have to support it, and what evidence do you have to support the refutation of Burley's Boxrec record? I would like specifics, what specifically about this book is "fiction"? Otty is a contactable and involved member of the boxing community, I will be most interested to hear this response. What lies has Otty told?

Furthermore, what lies has Rosenfeld told? The recently deceased Rosenfeld wrote his own book on this subject and confirmed much of what Otty has said. Have you read this book? What lies do you think Rosenfeld has told?



That is ridiculous. What non-boxing fans are likely to hunt down these specialised boxing books?




I thought you were an interesting thinker who might have something genuinely new to offer...this post is an embarrassment based upon total fiction. I'm dissappointed.

I have been posting details from those periods as much as I can but here I am posting another from that period :-

As We See It by Nat Fleischer, Publisher and Editor of The Ring
Langford, to our way of thinking, was the greatest negro middle, light heavy and heavyweight, scrapper that ever laced on a glove, and for that matter we'd go a little stronger and make the prediction that Tham and Jack Dempsey, both at the height of their career, the famous Boston socker would have given the present heavyweight king the battle of his life.

When Langford was good, there wasn't a man of his weight, or twenty pounds over, who could make him take a back step. He feared no man. His passion was to meet Jack Johnson for the crown that now rests on Jack Dempsey's dome, but the man of his color, who disgraced the race, refused to have any part of Langford.

Langford was good at heart. When he fought the late Stanley Ketchel back in 1910, he was threatened if he hurt the Assassin. Sam promised he wouldn't and he kept his word. The bout went down in the books as "six rounds no-decision."

[Greatest1942]

Actually Budd Schulberg labeled the boxers the Murderers Row in his book "Sparring with Hemingway and other legends of the fight game" and he goes into how they was avoided and such, the "fictional"(?) book "Charley Burley and the Black Murderers Row" just goes into a bit more detail.

History shows the the boxers were avoided and there's evidence for it.

Robinson himself stated that "I am too pretty to fight Charley Burley". The fact that Burley was ducked can be ascertained from the fact that from Welter to middle he ranked in the top 10 for almost 100 months, yet never got a title shot in any weight, not quite regular.