sam langford the most underated heavyweight of all time

[GunStar]

What old article?

If I remembered it, I would've mention it, I forgot.

[tommyhearns804]

Sam Langford wasn't a heavyweight.Why would anybody have him in their top anything?He was a 170 pound or maybe even smaller figher who fought in the early days of boxing when people weren't as nearly skilled as they became later.
You can't even say he was good for a 170 pounder because as i said you can't compare people from his time to people now.Smaller gloves,limited skills,and only a few of his fights were taped.You don't know how good he was or could of been you have just heard how great he was.

[butterfly1964]

Sam Langford wasn't a heavyweight.Why would anybody have him in their top anything?He was a 170 pound or maybe even smaller figher who fought in the early days of boxing when people weren't as nearly skilled as they became later.
You can't even say he was good for a 170 pounder because as i said you can't compare people from his time to people now.Smaller gloves,limited skills,and only a few of his fights were taped.You don't know how good he was or could of been you have just heard how great he was.

he was pretty good. he usually fought and beat guy alot bigger than him. he's a top 25 hw in my book.

[SuzieQ49]

"Firstly, I think that Harry Wills' series with Sam Langford proved that if you fought Sam enough he would eventually clean your clock. People often point to Harry's two KO losses to Langford as some sort of negative point that he had no chin or couldn't take it. That is pure crap in my mind. Langford could knock anyman out--and again if you fought him enough times, he WOULD knock you out. It was that simple in my mind. That being said, Sam was taking a good beating in both of those KO wins prior to landing the big punch that brought home the bacon. I think Harry deserves credit to the high heavens for fighting Sam as he did. The guy, even as a semi blind, pudgy version of his old self, was no walk in the park.
I have always felt that Sam's prime was 1907-1913. After that you can begin to see some *****s in the armor. During those 6 or seven odd years however, he fought something like 94 fights and was defeated only twice(officially), by Gunboat Smith(for whom he was not in shape and pulling to) in 1913 and Sam McVey(which many said was a bad decision) in 1911 Sam knocked out Smith in three rounds less than a year later and defeated McVey four times in 1912. The guy was just a monster.
Jeanette and Wills first met in 1913, which I think still fell in Jeanette's prime. This guy didn't loose much during the early teen years--he didn't lose much period. In fact the only guy to officially beat him from 1910 until the close of his career nearly a decade later was--well you guessed it--Sam langford. Jeannette was a guy who a great longevity to his career and was competitive until he hung them up. Wills' bouts with him 1913 and 1914 were certainly legit.
McVey is also interesting that his career as a competitive fighter was very long. He was probably nearing the end of his prime when he began sqauring off with Harry in 1914 and 1915, but still, not many guys would have beaten him then.
IMO Harry was not green when he began matching up with these three great fighters, but was certainly not a very experienced battler. he had nary 3 years under his belt and that is not a great deal when you begin to fight ten year plus veterans who happen to be some of the best of their generation and perhaps all time. I think Harry was willing to take his lumps against these guys and learned a great deal from them. You can see it in the record as he begins to improve in each outing against the trio. Sure they were getting older, but so too was Harry getting better and more skilled. I think Wills hit his prime along about 1916 and remained in his finest form until about 1923. After that I think inactivity and age began to erode his reflexes and skill. " - boxing historian kevin smith



"Langford had a very long prime IMO 1907-1913, or six years of prime fighting. He was at his best, again IMO in 1910-1911. That is when I feel he really had it all together and was not yet showing any kind of wear and tear----but had seen it all by then. Johnson, well his true physical prime may have been before he even won the title at age 30, but for argument's sake lets take the Johnson of 1908. With both in their prime, I truly think that you would have to have a series of bout to determine the winner. I think it would be that close, each time. Johnson was the better defensive fighter, but Sam was the better offensive guy. Now, I think strength would be important. If Jack could tie sam up in knots, he could frustrate him to no end, but if not, he would be in for a long night. In a finish fight, I think Sam was just too tough. he fought better comp than Johnson, plain and simple in my opinion. He also fought, and stayed competitive over a longer period of time. That counts for something in my book. Sam could knock out big men. he proved that time and again. But Johnson was no ordinary big man. He was a master at counterpunching and could feint men into mistakes that would usually cost them. Both men could move well, back to front, and both men could punch in combination.

For me it would come down to Johnson's strength, versus Langford's. Sam was a come forward kind of guy, who could overwhelm even the largest of fighters. If Jack had the moxy and pure strength to thwart and offset that, I think he could out box Sam--but not as one sided as some would think. Don't let it be said that Sam could not box. He was a fine boxer and could work behind a jab if he so chose. He outjabbed Gans when they fought and set up a good deal of his knockouts with a telephone jab.

The weight difference would certainly favor Johnson but not by more than 20 pounds. Langford, at his best would be around 175, Johnson 190-195. That is prime, tip top shape for each man. Fifteen to twenty pounds for old Sam was not that big a deal. It would favor Johnson, no doubt, but I think height more than weight would be a major advantage for Sam. Much is made of his reach but a good deal of that reach was a broad, broad set of shoulders. Still Sam was usually the shorter man when matching up with larger men, so it was a shortcoming that his style developed around. As his record demonstrates, he seems to have dealt with it just fine.

I could go on and on but let me say this. I think Langford is live money against anyone in history. I feel the same about Johnson. However, I think I lean towards Sam here. He was just the whole package, and again, he proved it again and again for 25 some odd years. I do think that if they fought ten times, Johnson would win his share, but in a one time, for all the money match, I would place my ducets on Sam Langford. "- Kevin Smith


i suggest getting kevin's book

"Caramel Colored Kings Volume 2: The History of the Black Prizefighter 1870-1930."

[LondonRingRules]

Sam Langford wasn't a heavyweight.Why would anybody have him in their top anything?He was a 170 pound or maybe even smaller figher who fought in the early days of boxing when people weren't as nearly skilled as they became later.
You can't even say he was good for a 170 pounder because as i said you can't compare people from his time to people now.Smaller gloves,limited skills,and only a few of his fights were taped.You don't know how good he was or could of been you have just heard how great he was.

** I'll tell you this, tapes show that Ali often looked mediocre when he weren't stinkin' up the place.

You know nothing of boxing. Sam was not the most skilled fighter, merely the most dangerous 160-180 lber who ever lived, and he had a style with a method that allowed him to fight his last 100 fights half or almost completely blind. Sam would have been known as the greatest heavyweight ever had Jack Johnson not ducked him for every year Johnson, and then Willard held the title.

[leff]

i think i have the common problem with rating langford........i just dont know enough about him.................feel free to enlighten me