Was Sam Langford the best fighter ever?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Warning harsh judgment below based on only one video:

I just don't see in that video the greatness y'all are always on about.

I see a just another pre-1920s back-foot fighter who lunges. I actually LOL when the title card told me to prepare for his "double jab."

Certainly for his day he was an ATG, numbers of fights and wins makes him extraordinary, but he, like most if not all fighters from his era, gets taken apart by most if not all of the post-1920 greats!

Really would like to see a Greb video; I wonder?

I haven't seen it, but i've seen most or all of Sam's fights. He's very good but his adherents exaggerate his skill and pretend he was more unique to his era than he actually was. They prefer to argue against the stereotypical caricature of the era, rather than tackle the challenge of explaining what it was actually like. But simultaneously, they pretend Boxing hasn't gotten much better, or at least refined.

It was also simply different. Boxing and Muay Thai are very old, and they've developed significantly over the past decades. But Boxers and Kickboxers arrive to MMA, which is relatively new and quite nebulous, and they get knocked out. So more refined, the skills are more attenuated, but not necessarily better.

Mustangs can't win a derby and they don't make great show horse, but they're actually great all-around horses, particularly in a hostile environment. Race horses and Tennessee Walkers are useless when serving the original purpose which man first domesticated horse.

So you see, Langford and contemporaries are great in their own right. But his groupies commit the real sin by trying to pretend he was something he wasn't and dime-out his contemporaries to make their case.

As far as Greb's concerned, i've resigned to the fact that we'll never know what he looked like in action, but Walker, Loughran, Gibbons, Carpentier, Tunney, McTigue and Dempsey all survive on film; a few others do as well, I'm sure. There's no questioning Harry's greatness based on the excellence those men so clearly display.

I also give fighters credit for the conditions they arrive under. Nobody has ever looked as good as Lomachenko, but Langford didn't have a century of sport to rely upon; his father wasn't a Boxing coach; he went professional as an inexperienced teenager, rather than as a fully grown man with decades of amateur experience; he fought whoever, whenever - the mor the better because then he got to eat and sleep in doors; he didn't get to undergo shoulder surgery - surgery might've even cost him his career quicker than the untreated injury; he didn't.... well, you know the rest.

But again, it wasn't just Langford who was experiencing all this. I think we can all agree Foreman and Toney were great. But were they better than Pernell Whitaker and Salvador Sanchez just because they were Heavyweights and had decades-long careers?

[Marchegiano]

Warning harsh judgment below based on only one video:

I just don't see in that video the greatness y'all are always on about.

I see a just another pre-1920s back-foot fighter who lunges. I actually LOL when the title card told me to prepare for his "double jab."

Certainly for his day he was an ATG, numbers of fights and wins makes him extraordinary, but he, like most if not all fighters from his era, gets taken apart by most if not all of the post-1920 greats!

Really would like to see a Greb video; I wonder?

Kind of unrelated.

I saw a video a while back of some kung fu./MMA guy breaking down Tommy Burns in the Bill Squires video.

He actually made some good points that seem a bit obvious now but didn't when I first watched it.

Tommy Burns fought a lot like Conor McGregor.

Which is interesting because Burns comes from an era that's a bit of a transitional period and the LPR rules were a bit more like modern MMA than modern boxing.

Could be, just an idea don't hang me for it, could be Sam Langford fights a bit more like it's MMA because he fought from the 00 to the 20s and the only men who could train a boxer in the 1900's were guys like Fitz and Choynski. Guys who just started developing the gloved boxing techniques.



I don't think Sam is removed enough from Sully to not reflect Sully's era more than Dempsey on forward.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Kind of unrelated.

I saw a video a while back of some kung fu./MMA guy breaking down Tommy Burns in the Bill Squires video.

He actually made some good points that seem a bit obvious now but didn't when I first watched it.

Tommy Burns fought a lot like Conor McGregor.

Which is interesting because Burns comes from an era that's a bit of a transitional period and the LPR rules were a bit more like modern MMA than modern boxing.

Could be, just an idea don't hang me for it, could be Sam Langford fights a bit more like it's MMA because he fought from the 00 to the 20s and the only men who could train a boxer in the 1900's were guys like Fitz and Choynski. Guys who just started developing the gloved boxing techniques.



I don't think Sam is removed enough from Sully to not reflect Sully's era more than Dempsey on forward.

I think that's very true.

There's McGregor in Fitzsimmons, Wilde, McFarland. Johnny Kilbane really fights like McGregor. You see traditional Karateka maintain a similar stance - but that's not where Conor gets it from: McGregor does his own damn thing. He kinda ****ed around with Boxing, he befriended a TKD instructor, I'm sure his gym exposed him to the tenets of modern kickboxing, but he fights a style all his own. Poirier, Halloway, Mendes, Aldo, Alvarez, Diaz, Cerrone... none of them have been handled on their feet like they were against McGregor. Even against Mayweather he scored big early and kept up a high punch count. For all his issues outside the ring, he's a master martial artist.


Dempsey came of age in a generation almost fully independent of rules permitting throws, headbutts, and backfists. And if you tried fighting like Jack in Kickboxing you'll eat massive knees early often.

[billeau2]

All that incoherent ranting and not a single referenceto something unrelated. I feel gyped. Next time you owe me two irrelevant tangents.

I thought I was black and white and lacked depth? which is it pook? heres a clue; wanna see what it is? look in the mirror.

[billeau2]

Hahahaha! Little punk.

You're true colors emerge. You're only here to gush over Black fighters.


I don't care what a fighter's skin tone may be, I care about the truth. There's a theme of celebrating Black fighters, particularly at the expense of White fighters, and fans of all races and the media participate in that. But while I acknowledge that, it's not my targeted objective; rather it falls under the umbrella of general ignorance which I'm combating.


As I've said, Langford isn't fit to carry Jimmy McLarnin's jockstrap. But even Carpentier and Young Stribling have careers more benefiting the accolades lauded unto Langford: decades of fighting the absolute best across multiple weight divisions. But they're forgotten because they're White and didn't suffer an assumed social injustice.

Let's be honest, this is a country that considers Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther Luther amongst its foremost heroes while committing iconoclasm against dudes who proved themselves the Platonic ideal of the most successful species to inhabit this planet. You don't expect that derangement and idiocy to seep into a sport famous for attracting idiots?

Again, I have invited all of you to prove your claim that Langford was the best of his generation, and you all demure. You're happy insulting me, but you won't engage my diplomacy.

If you're not scared and ******, what other conclusion may be drawn?

I think Langford was a great fighter... Not sold on him as absolutely as good as said BUT the notion that those who believe otherwise have not engaged and shown you reasonable proof of why they think Langford is great is BS.

And from your comments? you do have a racial agenda. I will never call you on it, but its there... I hate to say that in all seriousness because it deflects what might be a valid point.

You just disregaard what people give to you Pook. Your method is all over the place here... It is to discount and characterize, and then take some journeyman fighter like Coetze and elevate him. YES Coatze was a tough guy... Great!! I applaud

Lets take Houdini's description of Langford working Jeanette: I would disagree with him that it is fantastic work, but it is work, and it does show skills. YOU cannot see these things so you incriminate those who can...

[Rusty Tromboni]

I think Langford was a great fighter... Not sold on him as absolutely as good as said BUT the notion that those who believe otherwise have not engaged and shown you reasonable proof of why they think Langford is great is BS.

And from your comments? you do have a racial agenda. I will never call you on it, but its there... I hate to say that in all seriousness because it deflects what might be a valid point.

You just disregaard what people give to you Pook. Your method is all over the place here... It is to discount and characterize, and then take some journeyman fighter like Coetze and elevate him. YES Coatze was a tough guy... Great!! I applaud

Lets take Houdini's description of Langford working Jeanette: I would disagree with him that it is fantastic work, but it is work, and it does show skills. YOU cannot see these things so you incriminate those who can...

If they're making the claim, the onus is on them to prove it. I simply provide some perspective so they know what they're up against.

McGovern proved the world's best at 112, 116, 122 and 133. He actually was ****ed out of the championship by Erne, but he beat him none the less. He then thoroughly beat the #2 Lw in Gans. And the footage shows he was better than Langford. And it's not like Langford was able to beat the best Heavyweights while still a Middleweight. And even as a full grown Heavyweight he still struggled at times.

These are the kind of facts that Langford's fans refuse to confront. There were better fighters who were confronted with the same disappointments he was.

[billeau2]

If they're making the claim, the onus is on them to prove it. I simply provide some perspective so they know what they're up against.

McGovern proved the world's best at 112, 116, 122 and 133. He actually was ****ed out of the championship by Erne, but he beat him none the less. He then thoroughly beat the #2 Lw in Gans. And the footage shows he was better than Langford. And it's not like Langford was able to beat the best Heavyweights while still a Middleweight. And even as a full grown Heavyweight he still struggled at times.

These are the kind of facts that Langford's fans refuse to confront. There were better fighters who were confronted with the same disappointments he was.

I do think there were other fighters who had impeccible skills that are overlooked because of various things. A lot of it has to do with limited material to look at.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I do think there were other fighters who had impeccible skills that are overlooked because of various things. A lot of it has to do with limited material to look at.

Maybe.

But that doesn't really hold water.

We have plenty of footage of Gomez, almost none of Welterweight Robinson. How are they remembered?

Certain fans have clear agendas that they're able to promote because fans want good stories, not facts.

[DeeMoney]

While I don't consider Langford to be the best, I think its important to evaluate him at his best for this discussion. IMO, Langford's best/prime was probably from '07-'12 (his mid to late 20s). During this time, though he defended the 'Colored Heavyweight Title' he never was a heavyweight. His weight was mostly in the MW, SMW, & LHW range, but I don't think he came in over 180.

As such, comparing Langford to Heavyweights to evaluate how good he was seems a bit disingenuous. I think we need to judge him at his best weight relative to other fighters at that weight, both at his time and throughout history.

I think Langford, could easily be considered one of the greatest fighters ever in that weight range; though I'd listen to an argument of how the sport evolved so much after his prime. That being written, I don't think Langford at his best (relative to the weight class) is THE best ever.

[billeau2]

Maybe.

But that doesn't really hold water.

We have plenty of footage of Gomez, almost none of Welterweight Robinson. How are they remembered?

Certain fans have clear agendas that they're able to promote because fans want good stories, not facts.

Those agendas are a bit like certain myths in that they often contain a hint of fact. Many have been exxagerated, and sometimes there is a need to revise a belief about a fighter. Generally speaking, we have a lot of older fights that we have to take on eyewitness accounts and guys who were around and lived into the later eras.

Your speaking of one situation with Gomez and Robinson... What about Grebb? Burley, Even Tunney? The more we can look at the better we can see consistent work.