Jack Dempsey or Sam Langford who do you rate as the greater fighter?

[JackD]

Got to love triangle theories.

ok so you don't think it's a given jack dempsey would have murdered jack johnson (who got beat by willard) when dempsey beat willard like he did? jack johnson who beat langford.

i know i wouldnt be to worried about getting "flattened" by somebody who got beat up by somebody who got beat up by somebody i almost killed.

i don't see what could possibly back up the claim that langford was better than dempsey. so i just think its funny people here who know nothing saying "langford no contest".

[TheGreatA]

this guy knows his google i'm impressed.

jack dempsey said some strange things, or supposedly said some strange things. but the fact is that jess willard ko'd jack johnson in the 26th round. jack johnson beat langford in their only fight. and we all know jack dempsey beat jess willard worse than a modern fight would have allowed. gunboat smith defeated langford in 1 of their 2 fights and jack dempsey defeated smith both times they fought. the only question is the fireman guy langford beat that "knocked out" dempsey. this isn't on video and most believe dempsey threw the fight including gunboat smith who fought both dempsey and him and beat the fireman.

dempsey understood the importance of putting body weight into punches. i know that from the one book i read that he wrote (that i recommend). in that book he said he was not afraid of a 6'7 260lb willard. why would he seriously say someone as small as langford would "flatten" him? and langford was never outweighed as much as dempsey was with willard to my knowledge. people only praise langford because he was black. jack dempsey was the greatest from the greatest era of boxing bottom line.

No need for this garbage here.

You did not bother to mention that Johnson was 37 years old when he lost to a prime Willard, not the 37 year old Willard who was coming off years of inactivity that fought Dempsey. Gunboat Smith was also washed up and a regular punching bag at the time he fought Dempsey, and his win over Langford was questionable.

Now I wouldn't say that Dempsey "ducked" Langford as Langford at the end of his run when Dempsey was coming up, but there are plenty of reasons why people praise Langford other than his skin colour. The man fought and beat champions from lightweight up to heavyweight, and regularly fought men who outweighed him. Langford's opposition makes Dempsey's look like a joke in truth, but then again, his record makes almost everyone else's look like a joke. The competition he fought is about unmatched aside from perhaps Harry Greb, a middleweight who beat most of the heavyweights Dempsey fought.

It's like comparing Dempsey to Joe Louis, except Dempsey didn't campaign until he was shot and blind unlike Langford. Dempsey was 12 years younger than Langford and fought in an entirely different era.

[TheGreatA]

ok so you don't think it's a given jack dempsey would have murdered jack johnson (who got beat by willard) when dempsey beat willard like he did? jack johnson who beat langford.

i know i wouldnt be to worried about getting "flattened" by somebody who got beat up by somebody who got beat up by somebody i almost killed.

i don't see what could possibly back up the claim that langford was better than dempsey. so i just think its funny people here who know nothing saying "langford no contest".

Where was Jack Dempsey at 37? Go ahead and watch an old Dempsey catch a beating from fringe contender King Levinsky in a boxing exhibition in the 1930's.

Triangle theories are worthless, and this isn't even the usual A beat B who beat C therefore A must beat C, but it's A>B>C>D. Especially worthless when it's a comparison between fighters who had more than 10 years of difference in age.

By the way, Harry Greb>Willie Meehan>Dempsey.

[NChristo]

ok so you don't think it's a given jack dempsey would have murdered jack johnson (who got beat by willard) when dempsey beat willard like he did? jack johnson who beat langford.

i know i wouldnt be to worried about getting "flattened" by somebody who got beat up by somebody who got beat up by somebody i almost killed.

i don't see what could possibly back up the claim that langford was better than dempsey. so i just think its funny people here who know nothing saying "langford no contest".

Well, Jack Johnson was old, never trained for Willard at all and was fat for that fight but was still beating him until he got tired and even then a lot of people think Johnson took a dive, Langford was outweighed by what 30 lbs and after that fight Johnson said that Langford was the toughest guy he ever fought and blatantly ducked Langford whenever a fight was offered, plenty of evidence for this by the way (or are you going to say that's a lie because Johnson already beat him so why would he duck him ?).

Your argument for Jack saying that he wouldn't fight Langford because he beat Willard who beat a fat Johnson who beat an outweighed Langford holds no water at all.

And Triangle theories are usually just rubbish anyway, a lot of factors come into play not just, A boxer beats B boxer who beat C boxer so A boxer must beat C boxer.

[Greatest1942]

I'm only guessing but over 40 years of following the sport, I can imagine that he has developed opinions that he feels very strongly about. Then you hear people today saying Dempsey wasn't all that great and that Langford was the greatest ever. It's safe to say that almost no one 30 years ago felt this way. No one questioned Dempsey's greatness and few knew who Langford even was, outside of old timers. It's only more recently that people have started to accuse Dempsey of avoiding his best challengers and acknowledge Langford's greatness.

I don't think "re-visiting" history is necessarily bad but I also realize that in his own time Dempsey was seen as almost a legendary figure while Langford was more obscure, despite all his achievements. Being a champion of course had a lot to do with that, Langford was never given a shot at the middleweight or heavyweight title and never caught the public's eye like Jack Dempsey or Jack Johnson.

Sorry Langford not getting a shot was all politics and due champions being afraid of him. You are an extremely good poster...BUt these statements of yours are wrong. Lots of people some 50 years ago did feel that way. Some also didn't.

Langford was scheduled to meet Ketchel, in another thread by Sonny I had put all the documents related to that. You can check them out...Ketchel died...Not Sam's fault.

There are times here Sonny has said that Sam ducked Jack Johnson here are the facts for those:-

Promoters tried matching them up right after Johnson was finished his business with Jeffries in 1910, the fight was negotiated in London, yet Johnson changed his mind and refused the $20,000 offered to him (an offer was also presented to Johnson in 1914).

In 1911, Johnson signed with McIntosh and said that he would fight anybody in the world for a purse of $30,000. A couple of months later (in early 1912) that amount was offered to him to fight Langford in Australia, and yet again, Johnson refused to sign.

A couple of months after that, McIntosh upped the anty and this time offered Johnson $40,000 to fight Langford in Australia, which of course...well, you know.So there was demand but Jack wanted no part of Sam.

“I don’t want to fight that little smoke,” said Johnson. “He’s got a chance to win against anyone in the world. I’m the first black champion and I’m going to be the last.”...Sounds confident huh? But he still noted that Langford was the most dangerous.

But here is what Nat thought about Ketchel-Sam

“One hesitates to say that Ketchel, reknowned deservedly for his gameness, was afraid of Langford. But the fact remains that Stanley had refused several offers to meet Langford in a distance bout.”


As for your he was not thought highly sorry nothing could be more wrong, Sam was thought of in the highest possible regard,just a few to clear this up:-

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

He was marvelous as a fighting man, I'd venture to say unbeatable in his prime."--Harry Willis.

Charley Rose ranked Sam #1 heavy and Nat ranked him #7, they were oldtimers. Jack Blackburn considered Sam the best of the lot.

Jim Flynn, said of Langford’s punching power: “I fought most of the heavyweights, including [Jack] Dempsey and [Jack] Johnson, but Sam could strength a guy colder than any of them. When Langford hit me it felt like someone slugged me with a baseball bat.” He also acknowledged Sam as the best heavy he fought, and he met Jack Dempsey.

“Langford, was the greatest fighter who ever lived,” Jeanette


Want to know what the ring thought of him in 1924?

"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."

Well as for your not getting a title shot here is what James Corbett thought about that

"Whenever “marvels of the prize ring” are discussed it is well not to overlook Sam Langford.

For there is a fighter greater than many of the heralded greatest; a ringman who might have been a world’s champion in several different divisions if the chance to fight the champion only had come to him. But it was denied."

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, not Dempsey.

Hype Igoe rated him the P4p best.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.”

So there are lots of people of those times who not only picked him as a better P4p but also a lot of them who did pick him as the bestheavy ever.

I can give you more info...But to sum it up Sam was very much respected amongst his contemporaries and if he did not get a title shot it was because he was too good. I give you all this evidence just to tell you these are guys from those times not present day guys. Sam was P4P greater than Jack Dempsey. Just my two cents.

[TheGreatA]

Greatest1942, I was not saying that I think that way. I was explaining why sonnyboyx2 might feel the way he does.

I know all about Langford, and rate him one of the 10 best boxers to have ever done it, while I struggle to place Dempsey in the top 10 heavyweights.

[JackD]

No need for this garbage here.

You did not bother to mention that Johnson was 37 years old when he lost to a prime Willard, not the 37 year old Willard who was coming off years of inactivity that fought Dempsey. Gunboat Smith was also washed up and a regular punching bag at the time he fought Dempsey, and his win over Langford was questionable.

Now I wouldn't say that Dempsey "ducked" Langford as Langford at the end of his run when Dempsey was coming up, but there are plenty of reasons why people praise Langford other than his skin colour. The man fought and beat champions from lightweight up to heavyweight, and regularly fought men who outweighed him. Langford's opposition makes Dempsey's look like a joke in truth, but then again, his record makes almost everyone else's look like a joke. The competition he fought is about unmatched aside from perhaps Harry Greb, a middleweight who beat most of the heavyweights Dempsey fought.

It's like comparing Dempsey to Joe Louis, except Dempsey didn't campaign until he was shot and blind unlike Langford. Dempsey was 12 years younger than Langford and fought in an entirely different era.

but the old generation blends with the next. so we can compare them. ali fought foreman as well as tyson. tyson fought lennox lewis who fought one of the current champions. saying langford was pound for pound a better fighter is close to saying langford was a better fighter because it said in the same book where dempsey said he wasnt afraid of willard that he only weighed 180 not 187. which isn't far from langford. and the only reason willard gets labeled as a big ****** goof is because of what dempsey did to him. the fact is he did beat johnson. and fighters were tougher back then and what is holyfield? 47? willard was simply the better man that day. after all it was the 26th ROUND! he wasn't some feeble old man. i would like to see ANY modern fighter go 26 rounds. i know you have off days but i am saying if dempsey and langford were the same age dempsey would have beat him 98 times out of 100 at any point. and i doubt he ever said he was afraid of him. that is just ******.

and yeah sorry to bring race up but that was the toughest times in boxing. guys didnt look like muscle bound freaks back then but they were still much tougher and in better shape than fighters today. and some people hate the fact that the best fighter from that time was white. and i guess langford is their only argument. and the only argument is that he wasn't white and never fought dempsey.

[sonnyboyx2]

Sorry Langford not getting a shot was all politics and due champions being afraid of him. You are an extremely good poster...BUt these statements of yours are wrong. Lots of people some 50 years ago did feel that way. Some also didn't.

Langford was scheduled to meet Ketchel, in another thread by Sonny I had put all the documents related to that. You can check them out...Ketchel died...Not Sam's fault.

There are times here Sonny has said that Sam ducked Jack Johnson here are the facts for those:-

Promoters tried matching them up right after Johnson was finished his business with Jeffries in 1910, the fight was negotiated in London, yet Johnson changed his mind and refused the $20,000 offered to him (an offer was also presented to Johnson in 1914).

In 1911, Johnson signed with McIntosh and said that he would fight anybody in the world for a purse of $30,000. A couple of months later (in early 1912) that amount was offered to him to fight Langford in Australia, and yet again, Johnson refused to sign.

A couple of months after that, McIntosh upped the anty and this time offered Johnson $40,000 to fight Langford in Australia, which of course...well, you know.So there was demand but Jack wanted no part of Sam.

“I don’t want to fight that little smoke,” said Johnson. “He’s got a chance to win against anyone in the world. I’m the first black champion and I’m going to be the last.”...Sounds confident huh? But he still noted that Langford was the most dangerous.

But here is what Nat thought about Ketchel-Sam

“One hesitates to say that Ketchel, reknowned deservedly for his gameness, was afraid of Langford. But the fact remains that Stanley had refused several offers to meet Langford in a distance bout.”


As for your he was not thought highly sorry nothing could be more wrong, Sam was thought of in the highest possible regard,just a few to clear this up:-

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

He was marvelous as a fighting man, I'd venture to say unbeatable in his prime."--Harry Willis.

Charley Rose ranked Sam #1 heavy and Nat ranked him #7, they were oldtimers. Jack Blackburn considered Sam the best of the lot.

Jim Flynn, said of Langford’s punching power: “I fought most of the heavyweights, including [Jack] Dempsey and [Jack] Johnson, but Sam could strength a guy colder than any of them. When Langford hit me it felt like someone slugged me with a baseball bat.” He also acknowledged Sam as the best heavy he fought, and he met Jack Dempsey.

“Langford, was the greatest fighter who ever lived,” Jeanette


Want to know what the ring thought of him in 1924?

"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."

Well as for your not getting a title shot here is what James Corbett thought about that

"Whenever “marvels of the prize ring” are discussed it is well not to overlook Sam Langford.

For there is a fighter greater than many of the heralded greatest; a ringman who might have been a world’s champion in several different divisions if the chance to fight the champion only had come to him. But it was denied."

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, not Dempsey.

Hype Igoe rated him the P4p best.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.”

So there are lots of people of those times who not only picked him as a better P4p but also a lot of them who did pick him as the bestheavy ever.

I can give you more info...But to sum it up Sam was very much respected amongst his contemporaries and if he did not get a title shot it was because he was too good. I give you all this evidence just to tell you these are guys from those times not present day guys. Sam was P4P greater than Jack Dempsey. Just my two cents.

i have read hundreds of books and ****zines from the early part of the last century and i agree that Sam Langford was a great fighter But Langford in my opinion would not have defeated Jack Dempsey for the heavyweight championship, Sam Langford advertised in newspapers that he would fight any man in the world with the exception of Jim Jeffries, i have seen those adverts in the old papers, also i have watched almost every piece of footage there ever has been of the late Jim Jacobs who in my opinion was the most knowledgable boxing historian who ever lived and Jim Jacobs rated Jack Dempsey as the most ferocious fighting machine of all times, Jacobs talked of all the great fighters from the turn of the century yet none more so than Dempsey and from the footage which is available of both Dempsey & Langford i believe that Dempsey beats him but that is not saying Langford was not an unbelievable fighter, im just saying i dont think he would beat Dempsey who was a completely different kettle of fish to any other fighter, i once read a fantastic article by Gene Tunney in the mid 1970s and Tunney said Dempsey was the greatest fighter who ever laced gloves on.. and don't forget Tunney fought Harry Grebb several times and seen Joe Louis, Marciano, Liston & Muhammad Ali, Gene Tunney would know because he shared the ring with these great fighters.

[GoogleMe]

So much hate on Dempsey because he's white?

[Barn]

So much hate on Dempsey because he's white?

Are you serious?
Almost every poster on here rates Harry Greb in the Top 5 Pound for Pound MINIMUM.
The same for Benny Leonard but in the top 10.
I'm white and I don't place Jack Dempsey in my top 10 heavyweights, so leave race out of it please.