How good was Sam Langford?

[StarshipTrooper]

He gave his opinion. He is entitled to have one.

And I gave mine. Afterall, I'm equally entitled to have one. Just because he tries to dress up his insults in pseudo-intellectual drivel doesn't make it any less insulting.

[BattlingNelson]

And I gave mine. Afterall, I'm equally entitled to have one. Just because he tries to dress up his insults in pseudo-intellectual drivel doesn't make it any less insulting.

I believe you've got the message.

[Welsh Jon]

Ha some entertaining back and forth on this one! But in regards to Sam Langford he has regarded as a great because he fought and beat a lot of great fighters over the course of his career. He fought 12 hall of famers. He fought many of them several times so ended up fighting more than 50 fights against hall of fame opponents. He beat a lightweight ATF in Gans, he drew with a welterweight ATG in Walcott, beat a middleweight ATG in Ketchel and a light-heavyweight ATG in Philedelphia Jack O'Brien. At heavyweight he didn't get the world title fight he deserved but he was "coloured" world champ and toured the world winning the heavyweight title of Australian and Mexico. It's an awesome resume which makes the lack of a world title irrelevant.

[Anthony342]

langford was kinda like a james toney

a little guy that went from 140s-200s

toney went from the 150s-240s

Toney is really the last of the throwback fighters,, i dont think we will see many guys like that again, that have the tremendous skill of a langford or toney to continually rise in weight and have success

Yeah, just too bad Toney is hanging on for way too long now.

[Humean]

Boxing is different than other sports because it is a hybrid sport. It is partially combat and partially sport. Rather than cite any arguments to that effect of which there are plenty of opinions, its just worth noting that there are some differences.

Also, as stated in the other thread there are many very technically brilliant trainers of yore who continued an unbroken line of succession in the gyms. These trainers had a lot of information and a great point of comparison and it would seem that out of this group a lot of opinions suggest boxing has not evolved.

American boxing is hardly an anomolie in this respect...IF we consider it combat related. The Samurai culture of Japan had/has Martial Arts literacy and documented various successes, failures, changes etc in their Ko-Ryu systems.

So while there may be many biased and uninformed opinions around, there are also a lot of credible people who suggest the talent of fighters from different eras. Finally, this is not atypical when we look at boxing as a set of combative skills as opposed to a mere sport.

I don't think boxing has improved nearly a smuch as most sports, boxing clearly has some built in factors that prevent such progress. For instance one of the main reasons other sports have improved is that athletes are getting bigger, stronger and faster. By having weight classes boxing diminishes, at the very least, some of this effect if not a lot of it.

I am glad you point out that there is still at least some unbroken succession of boxing trainers, trainers who learnt from previous greats etc in a chain going way back in history. Now poet682006 and I gather others seem to think that there has been a decline, now even if there hasn't been an improvement and progress in boxing skills and technique has there really been a decline?

Where is your evidence that all other sports have improved?

In sports that are timed on a clock there is unequivocal evidence. In other sports where there isn't such a clear objective way to measure the evidence are largely with the eyes although with athletes getting bigger, stronger and faster it is hardly surprising that other sports would improve in quality because of this. Technological improvements have also improved sports in which this is relevant. Also with population growth you should expect improvements in talent because the pool has grown. I can understand people doubting whether boxing has improved but surely nobody can think that most, if not all, other sports haven't improved over time?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Yeah, just too bad Toney is hanging on for way too long now.

same could be said about langford,, he was nearly blind, and crippled (not literally) his last few years,,

Fighters hang on because that is all they know how to do,, its not like james toney is going to get a job at walmart or some bank when he reitres,, Its just to easy to keep taking fights and making money, albeit purses are smaller and smaller,,,

I think lennox, oscar, ward, hagler, all left at the right time,, sure those guys made millions except for mickey ward, but he did land huge purses for the rematches with gatti,,,,

You have to have an escape plan, look at pauli, he realizes his time is nearly done so he is cashing out on big fight with judah, broner, etc but also working really hard at broadcasting so he will have something to fall back on once he is done,,,,
James toney should have had an escape plan for boxing, but he was an idiot,, I understand when he was young, but after the jones fight and he went into exile for awhile and then showed back up at cruiser, he should have been stacking that cash he made from jirov, holyfield, ruiz, rahman, peter etc,,, but he didnt and he was given many chances, so toney has no one to blame but himself,,,,

[RubenSonny]

I don't think boxing has improved nearly a smuch as most sports, boxing clearly has some built in factors that prevent such progress. For instance one of the main reasons other sports have improved is that athletes are getting bigger, stronger and faster. By having weight classes boxing diminishes, at the very least, some of this effect if not a lot of it.

I am glad you point out that there is still at least some unbroken succession of boxing trainers, trainers who learnt from previous greats etc in a chain going way back in history. Now poet682006 and I gather others seem to think that there has been a decline, now even if there hasn't been an improvement and progress in boxing skills and technique has there really been a decline?



In sports that are timed on a clock there is unequivocal evidence. In other sports where there isn't such a clear objective way to measure the evidence are largely with the eyes although with athletes getting bigger, stronger and faster it is hardly surprising that other sports would improve in quality because of this. Technological improvements have also improved sports in which this is relevant. Also with population growth you should expect improvements in talent because the pool has grown. I can understand people doubting whether boxing has improved but surely nobody can think that most, if not all, other sports haven't improved over time?

So you don't actually have evidence you are just stating your opinion and by the way the talent pool in boxing was far larger during the first half of the century. Comparing records in athletics to boxing is very ******ed.

[Humean]

So you don't actually have evidence you are just stating your opinion and by the way the talent pool in boxing was far larger during the first half of the century. Comparing records in athletics to boxing is very ******ed.

Opinions are either true or false.

Are you referring to boxing or other sports when you say "you don't actually have evidence you are just stating your opinion"?

Even if the talent pool in boxing in terms of active boxers fighting is smaller now than lets say in 1940 or 1950 then what you say doesn't follow because what is important is the total pool which is the entire population (world population). Also the boxing pool may not actually be smaller, smaller in the USA for sure but what about the explosion of boxing throughout the world since 1940 or 1950? During the 30s, 40s and 50s about two thirds of all boxing world champions were American, that hasn't been the case for a number of decades. So there is reason/evidence apart from the eyes to see improvement in sports such as boxing where there isn't a great objective standard to measure.

Comparing records in athletics to boxing is not ******ed, boxers are athletes just like the athletes who run track, throw javelins and pole vault.

[BattlingNelson]

I don't think boxing has improved nearly a smuch as most sports, boxing clearly has some built in factors that prevent such progress. For instance one of the main reasons other sports have improved is that athletes are getting bigger, stronger and faster. By having weight classes boxing diminishes, at the very least, some of this effect if not a lot of it.

I am glad you point out that there is still at least some unbroken succession of boxing trainers, trainers who learnt from previous greats etc in a chain going way back in history. Now poet682006 and I gather others seem to think that there has been a decline, now even if there hasn't been an improvement and progress in boxing skills and technique has there really been a decline?

That's difficult to measure as the rules have changed. We no longer have 45 rounds finish fights. What is clear though, is that the talentpool is much smaller today as there is fewer boxers who fights fewer times.

In sports that are timed on a clock there is unequivocal evidence. In other sports where there isn't such a clear objective way to measure the evidence are largely with the eyes although with athletes getting bigger, stronger and faster it is hardly surprising that other sports would improve in quality because of this. Technological improvements have also improved sports in which this is relevant. Also with population growth you should expect improvements in talent because the pool has grown. I can understand people doubting whether boxing has improved but surely nobody can think that most, if not all, other sports haven't improved over time?

Yeah, but boxing is a unique sport and attributes as toughness and hunger counts for much more than in other sports.

[Humean]

That's difficult to measure as the rules have changed. We no longer have 45 rounds finish fights. What is clear though, is that the talentpool is much smaller today as there is fewer boxers who fights fewer times.

Yeah, but boxing is a unique sport and attributes as toughness and hunger counts for much more than in other sports.

The talent pool is not primarily the number who actively box, it is the entire world population. Since 1950 the US population has doubled, the world population has trebled. I don't think it is even debatable that boxing standards have improved since the days of 45 rounds, what is more debatable is whether it has improved since the 30s,40s,50s.

I think you underestimate the level of toughness and mental fortitude in many other sports.