Is Sam Langford the greatest fighter never to win a world title?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Talking about giant sacks. Joe Gans lost a a decision after 15 rounds to Langford. That in itself is perhaps not exceptional, but if one throws in that Gans beat the undefeated Dave Holly the day before and travelled 300 miles the next day to go the distance with Langford!

I know this isn't a Gans thread, but I had to throw it in here.

That's an amazing feat... Didn't realize he had a fight with holly the day before..
I think it's amazing for gans just to go all 15 with Langford who was naturally bigger..

What weight did Langford and gans fight at?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Sam Langford did win a world title, in fact he won several. You don't have to believe Fleischer's distorted history of who the 'real' champions were anymore. Langford was at least a two weight world champion, maybe three or four.

Can you explain a little more about these champs that Langford beat... Curious to know more.. What fighters and what weight classes, and maybe contrast those with who were considered champs by fleischer...

Thanks

[Holywarrior]

When I think of the word 'accomplished' I think of skills, experience, the use of a craft and my dear friend?????? NOBODY is a way more accomplished fighter than Burley. Langford may be better, have a better resume, be handsomer, uglier, thinner, fatter, have more hair, less hair, but Burley was one of the truly consumate fighters ever to step into a ring.

Your comment comes across as exxagerated at best, ridiculous at worse...zi like to give the enefit of the doubt so I will say you have exxagerated the accomplishments of any fighter compared to Burley

I will say you can't spell exaggerated.

Sam Langford astonishes all with a trained eye, outfought and outgeneralled Joe Gans, the lightweight champion of the world in every round of the fifteen they contested last night.”

Other reports have it closer; all have it for Langford. What Sam learned in the ring that night can only be guessed at, but after the fight he spoke in detail with sometime middleweight and light-heavyweight contender George Byers on how to improve his punching form. “I didn’t know nothing,” Langford would say of their meeting. “I used to chase and punch, hurt my hands. After George taught me I made them come to me. I made them lead.”

Langford became one of the greatest punchers of all time and like Joe Louis after him and Bob Fitzsimmons before he would develop great subtlety in skill to buy that lead. Moyle’s telling of the Fulton fight would illustrate perfectly how dangerous he would become, and remain, even past his best.

After Gans, Langford beat George McFadden and was then matched for the welterweight title against Barbados Joe Walcott. Still a teenager, Langford “completely outboxed” the champion, but the decision was a draw, based almost entirely upon Walcott’s aggression in making the fight. Dave Holly, Young Peter Jackson and Jack Blackburn were the top names Langford tied up through ’05, and then the strangest thing happened. Langford stepped up to heavyweight and lost in eight rounds to Joe Jeannette. Just 5-foot-7 and weighing in under the middleweight limit, Langford obviously found this division to his liking and he rematched Jeanette four months later, this time outpointing him over fifteen. It was the beginning of his domination of the “The Black Dynamite,” a group of black heavyweights who fought each other regularly for walking around money because white contenders avoided them like the plague.

Easily the smallest of them, Langford was also the best of them between 1906 and 1915 when the youth and size of Harry Wills began to wear upon him. Wills, unquestionably one of the great heavyweights, finally got to grips with Langford, but would remain vulnerable to his astonishing punching ability throughout their epic series, losing by knockout in the 19th round of a scheduled 20 after walking onto a Langford left hook in their February 1916 contest.

What sets Langford apart, if he is to be set apart, is his domination of the heavyweight division which saw him beat, amongst other, Wills, McVey, Jeanette, Stanley Ketchel, Jim Flynn, Iron Hague, Gunboat Smith, Jim Johnson, Dan Flynn, John Johnson, Jim Johnson and Jack O’Brien. He was never the champion, but Jack Johnson’s refusal to meet him in the ring for the title, having previously beaten a middleweight Langford whilst enjoying a thirty-pound weight advantage, speaks volumes. Langford’s heavyweight resume is vastly superior to that of Harry Greb, and although Langford is naturally a bigger fighter if not a taller one, he also sports the better wins below middleweight.

It is not a new idea. Both Harry Wills and Jack Dempsey ranked Sam Langford as The Greatest, as did historian and promoter Charley Rose. Hype Igoe, the legendary New York boxing writer and cartoonist who covered the fights between 1907 and 1937, rated him the best fighter he ever saw. His peers Joe Williams and Grantland Rice agreed with him. Existing film gives clues as to why he was and is so highly thought of it, but there is simply not enough of it to ever satisfy. One thing all of those precious fights have in common is the opponent—each and every one of them looks absolutely terrified.

[crold1]

Can you explain a little more about these champs that Langford beat... Curious to know more.. What fighters and what weight classes, and maybe contrast those with who were considered champs by fleischer...

Thanks

He might be referring to the 'colored' world titles that floated around. They had some economic value but are often overlooked, in part because (outside Heavyweight), while there were less shots there was always some level of integration in boxing. There was also a 'white' championship at various times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_C...t_Championship

[billeau2]

I will say you can't spell exaggerated.

Sam Langford astonishes all with a trained eye, outfought and outgeneralled Joe Gans, the lightweight champion of the world in every round of the fifteen they contested last night.”

Other reports have it closer; all have it for Langford. What Sam learned in the ring that night can only be guessed at, but after the fight he spoke in detail with sometime middleweight and light-heavyweight contender George Byers on how to improve his punching form. “I didn’t know nothing,” Langford would say of their meeting. “I used to chase and punch, hurt my hands. After George taught me I made them come to me. I made them lead.”

Langford became one of the greatest punchers of all time and like Joe Louis after him and Bob Fitzsimmons before he would develop great subtlety in skill to buy that lead. Moyle’s telling of the Fulton fight would illustrate perfectly how dangerous he would become, and remain, even past his best.

After Gans, Langford beat George McFadden and was then matched for the welterweight title against Barbados Joe Walcott. Still a teenager, Langford “completely outboxed” the champion, but the decision was a draw, based almost entirely upon Walcott’s aggression in making the fight. Dave Holly, Young Peter Jackson and Jack Blackburn were the top names Langford tied up through ’05, and then the strangest thing happened. Langford stepped up to heavyweight and lost in eight rounds to Joe Jeannette. Just 5-foot-7 and weighing in under the middleweight limit, Langford obviously found this division to his liking and he rematched Jeanette four months later, this time outpointing him over fifteen. It was the beginning of his domination of the “The Black Dynamite,” a group of black heavyweights who fought each other regularly for walking around money because white contenders avoided them like the plague.

Easily the smallest of them, Langford was also the best of them between 1906 and 1915 when the youth and size of Harry Wills began to wear upon him. Wills, unquestionably one of the great heavyweights, finally got to grips with Langford, but would remain vulnerable to his astonishing punching ability throughout their epic series, losing by knockout in the 19th round of a scheduled 20 after walking onto a Langford left hook in their February 1916 contest.

What sets Langford apart, if he is to be set apart, is his domination of the heavyweight division which saw him beat, amongst other, Wills, McVey, Jeanette, Stanley Ketchel, Jim Flynn, Iron Hague, Gunboat Smith, Jim Johnson, Dan Flynn, John Johnson, Jim Johnson and Jack O’Brien. He was never the champion, but Jack Johnson’s refusal to meet him in the ring for the title, having previously beaten a middleweight Langford whilst enjoying a thirty-pound weight advantage, speaks volumes. Langford’s heavyweight resume is vastly superior to that of Harry Greb, and although Langford is naturally a bigger fighter if not a taller one, he also sports the better wins below middleweight.

It is not a new idea. Both Harry Wills and Jack Dempsey ranked Sam Langford as The Greatest, as did historian and promoter Charley Rose. Hype Igoe, the legendary New York boxing writer and cartoonist who covered the fights between 1907 and 1937, rated him the best fighter he ever saw. His peers Joe Williams and Grantland Rice agreed with him. Existing film gives clues as to why he was and is so highly thought of it, but there is simply not enough of it to ever satisfy. One thing all of those precious fights have in common is the opponent—each and every one of them looks absolutely terrified.

And what I will say is those who cite "spelling" and what others should absolutely know as common knowledge might as well declare the butt hurt they feel...I guess I should pulla blocka text somewhere touting Burley right? It doesn't work that way though....Langford might well be better than Burley but he we are discussing two great fighters and if one is greater it is respectfully so, marginally so, no....Langford is not in another class in terms of being accomplished.

Now go find a word I missplededddeed theres one!

[Holywarrior]

And what I will say is those who cite "spelling" and what others should absolutely know as common knowledge might as well declare the butt hurt they feel...I guess I should pulla blocka text somewhere touting Burley right? It doesn't work that way though....Langford might well be better than Burley but he we are discussing two great fighters and if one is greater it is respectfully so, marginally so, no....Langford is not in another class in terms of being accomplished.

Now go find a word I missplededddeed theres one!

Another block of text with no substance whatsoever. Burley is probably a top 25 guy, Langford a top 5. Big difference.

[Humean]

Can you explain a little more about these champs that Langford beat... Curious to know more.. What fighters and what weight classes, and maybe contrast those with who were considered champs by fleischer...

Thanks

Before roughly 1920 usually a few Americans claimed to be the champion at whatever weight and at least one British fighter also made a claim. Therefore there cannot be any suggestion that there is any real legitimate order before roughly 1920. The Heavyweight division has the clearest ordering before 1920 but even that has its questionable aspects.

Welterweight: Langford drew with Walcott in 1905 but opinion suggested he won the fight very clearly and Langford claimed the title off the back of this.

Middleweight: Langford won the British version of the world championship in 1907 against James Tiger Smith, the National Sporting Club was the only "organization" that can be said to recognize champions until the IBU(EBU) in 1910.

Light-Heavyweight: http://boxrec.com/hugman/index.php/1..._New_York,_USA

Heavyweight: Langford defeated Iron Hague for the British version of the heavyweight title in 1909. Langford also claimed the 'colored' heavyweight championship that year.

So was Langford a world champion at one, two, three, or four weight classes? Or was he never a champion at all? I think the lesson to be learned is that before 1920 there were only claimants, some more credible than others but rarely could you claim there was only one champion. To claim Langford was not a world champion is really to claim you know who all the 'legitimate' champions were and I don't think it is credible to do so.

[billeau2]

Another block of text with no substance whatsoever. Burley is probably a top 25 guy, Langford a top 5. Big difference.

Block of text? really? okay......

[Holywarrior]

Block of text? really? okay......

so Where do you rank Burley, compared to Langford? Burley really only fought at Middleweight and Langford fought and beat class from Lightweight to Heavyweight

This isn't really close, IMO

[Humean]

Burley is probably a top 25 guy, Langford a top 5. Big difference.

Burley is definitely 13th and Langford is absolutely certainly 8th. You know some people say Shumenov is the 872nd greatest light-heavyweight but they are way out on that, Shumenov is definitely, and everyone with knowledge knows this, the 871st greatest light-heavyweight. Now don't get me started on who is the 1745th greatest lightweight.....