Sam Langford v Jack Dempsey

[gazot]

'I think Sam Langford was the greatest fighter we ever had. In 1916 I came here and had a couple of fights and won them. I was managed by a fellow named John the Barber. After winning these two fights he said, "I got a good fight for you." I said, "Who is it?" He says, "Sam Langford." I said, "Not me! Goodbye!" He was a great fighter and I didn't have the experience to fight a man like that. He was a hell of a puncher, never been licked, so why should I get my brains knocked out for nothing? Even at my best I don't know whether I could lick him or not. He was a good man, good puncher, rough, tough.'

Jack Dempsey 1970.

Who would win if these two fought in their primes?

[Roberto Aqui]

Though they have overlapping careers their primes didn't overlap. Langford in his prime would have ruined the young skinny Dempsey who rode the rails into Harlem. Conversely, Langford tried to get a title shot from Dempsey who refused to fight a now blind Langford. Langford was timing his opponents by their footsteps in the ring by that point since he couldn't see.

Prime to prime is a different story. Langford definitely had to power to hurt Jack and maybe KO him. Langford was more likely to be KOed in general, so in a match up with two great sluggers the one with the better chin is the safe bet.

Langford would have an odd style for Dempsey, and vice versa. I'd favor a Dempsey KO, followed by a UD Langford, followed by a UD Dempsey in the rubbermatch giving Dempsey 2 of 3 in a all time great series.

To put it in another perspective, I can see Dempsey handling Langford's comp 1908-13, but Langford having trouble with some of Dempsey's comp 1919-26, specifically Willard, Firpo, Gibbons, and Tunney.

[Hagler04]

Langford having trouble with Firpo??? I don't see that one bit.

Langford had the right combination of power and being slippery to frustrate the hell outta Dempsey.

He was the rarest of fighters who was a very small target but hit like a macktruck. Dempsey wouldn't be able to just swing for the fences like he did vs Firpo, Williard, and Fulton. He would have to make it an inside fight like he did vs Gibbons, but that was Langford's forte and with his more compact structure and shorter stature, I don't see Dempsey winning that battle.

Langford TKO 11.

[Colin Maclaurin]

a few questions:

are you suggesting langford was a better infighter than dempsey?

swinging for the fences, what the hell are you talking about? i don't believe anyone swinging for the fences could have taken fulton out in 15sec. and further he had willard reeling all over the ring so why not get a little loopy with your swings?

are you suggesting dempsey was a wild fighter? seems to me langford is the more wild fighter of the two. i am probably in the minority, but dempsey has him out in 3.

[PeteLeo]

I'm a big Langford fan and have tons of respect for the man, but the films (granted, shot late in his career) show that he wasn't as "slick" as we have been led to believe by the legends. He was quite hittable by even lesser opponents, and his success seems to have depended as much on his toughness as his slickness. Would toughness insulate him from Dempsey's incredible short-punch power?
Hell, I don't know if even Chuvalo was tough enough to stand up to what the prime Dempsey could dish out. I have to go with Jack in this one. PeteLeo.

[Mr E]

Sam's one of those guys whose reputation suffered greatly (at least in my mind) once the films of his fights (Flynn, Lang) became widely disseminated. He was a strong, durable little fella, but now I understand how he could have dropped a 6-round "newspaper" nod to Ketchel. He threw a lot of wide-angle punches and was oh-so-easy to hit. I doubt the Fulton fights were flukes and I absolutely do think he would have had major trouble with a 6'2", 216 pound slugger like Firpo.

I think Dempsey steps right inside those looping long-archers and leaves the Boston Terror deader than a doornail within the first 3 minutes. My pick: Dempsey in ONE.

[Hagler04]

Dempsey in 1??? That is laughable. I don't think Langford comes off looking bad at all from the film. Against Flynn he shows great infighting ability and wonderful combinations. Against Lang (whose quality is awful by the way) he basically walks through Bill and doesn't seem to even be extending himself. I'd say if anyone comes off looking bad from the film its Dempsey (you're telling me those were not wide hooks from 'down home' he threw at Williard) and I'm actually a big fan of Jack.
Against Firpo he was past his best and in the TKO loss he was stopped due to a cut . . not from being knocked out. The other was a 4 round decision loss . . and Fulton was twice the fighter of Firpo anyway.
I see nothing wrong with a Dempsey pick but I don't see any basis for saying Dempsey would have an easy, early night.

[Mr E]

Dempsey in 1??? That is laughable. I don't think Langford comes off looking bad at all from the film. Against Flynn he shows great infighting ability and wonderful combinations. Against Lang (whose quality is awful by the way) he basically walks through Bill and doesn't seem to even be extending himself.

Well, you know, that's what makes horse races, I suppose. I just disagree very very severely indeed with your assessment of how the good Mr. Langford appears on film.

I'd say if anyone comes off looking bad from the film its Dempsey (you're telling me those were not wide hooks from 'down home' he threw at Williard) and I'm actually a big fan of Jack.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to go ahead and assume you are refering to the final 2:30 of round 1 v. Willard, because that's the only film of Dempsey I've seen where he appears "wild." Realistically, though, you got to cut him a little slack there -- lots of fighters swing from the heels when they have their opponents reeling around the ring ready to go. Take another look at rounds 2 & 3 of that fight, though, and tell me if you don't think Dempsey looks a lot more poised and -- dare I say it? -- "modern."

Against Firpo he was past his best and in the TKO loss he was stopped due to a cut . . not from being knocked out.

Assuming you mean Fulton, not Firpo, that "TKO by 7" was the only fight in Langford's career in which he could be accused of quitting. Every account I've read of that fight, including one next-day newspaper report, has Sam getting his head absolutely handed to him. Accordingly, I believe that it is inaccurate for you to suggest, if you ARE so suggesting, that that was an "unlucky" result for Sam brought about by a "fluke" cut.

The other was a 4 round decision loss . .

Right. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but that fight, too, was a one-sided wax-job. At that stage in their careers, Fulton clearly had Langford's number.

and Fulton was twice the fighter of Firpo anyway.

Close either way, IMO. I think Fulton is vastly under-rated today, but I'm not sure he beats Firpo. Reasonable minds could differ on that match-up.

I see nothing wrong with a Dempsey pick but I don't see any basis for saying Dempsey would have an easy, early night.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.

[Hagler04]

I'm not suggesting Dempsey was a wild brawler, but am asserting that he, like Langford, could be wild at times . . as you seem to be characterizing Langford as a wild swinging brawler (and think in the first place, could have such an amateurish guy beaten the boxers he beat?)

Fulton did clearly beat Langford, but Sam was also two years outta his prime (but still VERY dangerous) I respect Fulton, who although there is no film the writers commended his sharp jab, ring generalship, and skills. Firpo on the other hand was crude with no jab to speak of (and the writers made note of such). I clearly favor Fulton, who beat the vastly superior competetion and had better skills along with great power.

Again, I'd like to know more why you think Dempsey would beat Langford in one, whereas Sam had an outstanding chin and went the distance/beat many great boxers and punchers.

[Mr E]

You actually put your finger right on it. Yes, I do, in fact, strongly suspect that Langford was really more of free-swinging slugger than anything. I think he was tough as nails and a big hitter with good, but not great, reflexes and mobility. And I also think he was pretty easy to hit.

How does this jibe with what we know of his contemporaries? Well, everyone I know who has seen the films of the Sam McVey-Battling Jim Johnson fight has expressed to me emotion bordering on horror at how wild and crude those guys looked. Langford perhaps shaded McVey in their series, but it's clear that they were evenly matched, which further leads me to suspect that that legendary trio -- Langford, Jeannette & McVey -- have all been significantly over-rated over time. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my sincere gut instinct.

The fact that Langford seemed to flounder against the newer breed -- i.e., Wills & Fulton -- further bolster my conviction in this regard. He did break through and flatten Wills 2 times in 20 fights, losing the other 18, but I guess I attribute that more to Wills' shakey chin than anything else. In any case, there's no question that Wills won that series by a wide margin.

As to Dempsey, I regard him as the hardest hitter, pound-for-pound, in the history of the game. IMO, he would have hit Langford early and often, and Langford, tough tho' he unquestionably was, would not have survived.

Now, I fully appreciate that these opinions are just that -- opinions based on my personal conjecture and deductions. If folks don't find 'em convincing (and I rather imagine you do not), no skin off my nose. Just interested in a friendly exchange of ideas here.

E

[Roberto Aqui]

Sam was in his mid 30s when he started to lose significantly. Dempsey and Louis retired in their mid 30s yet Sam had already accumulated close to 150 bouts by his mid 30s, almost as much as Jack and Joe combined.

I thought the premise of the bout was prime to prime. I'm already on record as picking Jack 2 of 3 in a great hard fought series, but it seems Jack has at least won the poll by 5/1.

I don't believe Langford was a true heavyweight in the sense that most heavy champs averaged around 185-200 lbs and at his best Sam seems to have been around 160 to 180. Against Wills, Sam gave up 6yrs of hard as hell fights, 9" of height and reach and did fine to start the series. Wills also held a big advantage over Jeannette who was even older than Langford. We expect that kind of advantage of youth.

[JLP 6]

Could Sam handle Jack's power and speed? No. Sam would probably come right after Jack and try to take the he initutive hoping to hurt Jack. I think Jack plays it cautious for a round or two looking for openings.

Sam isn't a Greb type even though he hit harder. Greb swarmed and mauled. In a sparring session your heart isn't in killer mode like it would be in a bout. Dempsey may have underestimated Greb because he was a middle.

Greb was effective, but it was his stlye that caused Jack problems. Sam doesn't fight with Greb's stlye. Sam fights at mid-range looking for counters.

The first time he hits Sam with something hard he will turn into a bull and finish Sam.

In the fight Sam lands some good shot a gets respect, but taking a prime Jack's shots when your a lightheavyweight at best is a bit much.

Dempsey in 4.

[Colin Maclaurin]

you make alot of good points and i respect your opinions. a few questions:

1) what is your opinion of the boxing critics of the era in question? surely if you doubt their analysis on langford, then one must question their analysis on dempsey.

2) could you go into detail for me on a langford vs ketchel matchup? curious to see how you break that down.

3) what division do rank langford at and where do you rank him?

[Roberto Aqui]

1. Boxing critics should be taken with a grain of salt. Too many are enthusiasts who let their emotions and prejudices get the better of them. In any fight there are a wide variance of opinion. Subjectivity is an art.

2. Langford and Ketchel fought to a 6rd NC that was dull. It was obvious Sam was trying to lure Ketchel into a title match, but Ketchel died shortly thereafter. I would favor Langford by mid rd KO or less. Too much power but Ketchel would shoot off some fireworks before going.

3. Langford did his best work at heavy, though he started as a lightweight. He could have been middle thru heavy champ had he been given an opportunity.

[Ronald Lipton]

There are some excellent points by all the great posters here on the Zone.

I have seen footage of Langford and Ketchel and they were ferocious pioneers of this sport. Great in their own way, immeasurable courage, strong and determined, who would fight anyone.

In this fight at their best despite Ring Magazine picking Langford as the #2 puncher of all time which I disagree with tremendously, I see Dempsey at 185 not a 160lb half starved ride the rails hobo jungle animal, but a prepared heavyweight, breaking down Ole Sam and hurting him badly.

Sam on the other hand could pull an upset by blasting him in sweet spot on the temple or directly on the chin. Anything is possible, but I see Dempsey really taking him down and hard.

I also see Zale and Tiger, LaMotta, Cerdan, and others beating the shit out of Ketchel. Sorry.

[rocky111]

Sal Rappa who I respect big time told me he figured the prime Dempsey too big and strong for Sam. I must agree. Jack in his prime was some maneater and his size would be the difference. BUT then again Langford was held in such esteem by his contempories. If he was in the mood for combat and on a good nite.....Who can tell. But Dempsey at 188 is such a force. I dont think Sam ever faced a guy like that. Jacks legs were so good in his prime and few guys could move and hit like that along with his great chin. Its some package.
I know Jack has written about how he feared Sam. I believe he did as all young guys fear the king of the hill when they are coming up. Its understandable. Sam is one of the greatest if not the greatest lb for lb of his time. What a matchup of two of my all time favorite fighters.

[Mr E]

you make alot of good points and i respect your opinions.

Thank you. Likewise.

a few questions:
1) what is your opinion of the boxing critics of the era in question? surely if you doubt their analysis on langford, then one must question their analysis on dempsey.

Great question. I really don't find myself disagreeing with contemporary opinion of either man. Langford, though respected, did not make his way onto many all-time heavyweight lists back in the and '20s and '30s. Indeed, I have never seen an all-time ranking of heavyweights prepared within 3 decades of Dempsey & Langford's careers wherein the author placed Langford above the Mauler. Usually, you see Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey & Louis vying for the top spots, w/ Langford just squeezing into the bottom 10, if he makes the list at all. I think contemporary opinion respected Langford greatly but that it also placed him a level below Dempsey. I agree.

2) could you go into detail for me on a langford vs ketchel matchup? curious to see how you break that down.

Well, from what I've read of their bout, it was a fun, free-wheeling affair that featured two tough, aggressive and hard-hitting fighters. Came down the wire but it sounds like the consensus was that Ketchel nudged him. Based on what I've seen of each man on film, that strikes me as a believable result. [Many on this board -- and elsewhere -- take it for granted that Langford carried Ketchel because they start from the assumption that Langford was an all-time great heavyweight whereas Ketchel was just a crude, old-fashioned (and over-rated) brawler.]

3) what division do rank langford at and where do you rank him?

I have Langford in the top 5 or so all-time light-heavyweights. Definitely below Tunney and Charles, in my mind. Right in there with (chron order) Fitzsimmons, Greb, Gibbons, Moore and Spinks. As shade above (chron order) Norfolk, Loughran, Conn, Bivins, H. Johnson, Foster.


As for Roberto's suggestion that the board seems to favor Dempsey here, that could be, but I strongly suspect that it won't be long before the very knowledgeable and astute boxing historian, Mr. Kevin Smith, appears to take up Mr. Langford's gauntlet. But, as I said, that's what makes horse races -- and any true boxing afficianado should enjoy the debate!

[JimmyShimmy]

Some peoples arguments are a little unfocused:

Langford was a better fighter than Wills and whips him prime 4 prime.

When Langford fought Fulton in 1917 he was outboxed and apparently thumbed in the eye resulting in a blind spot, which (like Grebs) got progressively worse as he fought on-hence why he started losing to Wills so much-also he was in his mid 30's and not the fighter he once was.

Langford in his pomp was a viscous boxer/puncher-probably the first known fighter of that genre. He was not wild at all as 'wild' means to not care were you land when you swing and that is entirely untrue of Sam.

He just liked to get stuck in and took risks.

When he was a lightweight he beat some real name fighter's-excluding Gans (as he had no time to prepare for Langford and travelled far) he beat Blackburn, Young Peter Jackson and managed to hang with Joe Walcott-that most certainly depicts some skill/ring craft.

Langford was in some rough fights and was apparently battered against Johnson but did not give up fighting like a champion-he had a heart of gold.

It holds true that Langford never fought a guy like Dempsey and vice versa. Two trains colliding indeed.

I feel it is unfair to do this fantasy match-up due to the big lack of material I have seen of Langford-his true ability is known by very few-if any.

Still from what I have read and seen I get the picture Dempsey was the more polished fighter with more going for him-like speed/elusiveness and versatility. Langford had those long powerful accurate arms and could know doubt shake/drop Dempsey but the time Dempsey claimed he was hurt worst is in his second fight with Brennan were he get's caught with an uppercut, is clearly shaken but then recovers super quick and fires back-Dempsey was not in possession of the most solid base but his instinct/drive to win/survive was so great he came through most bad patches seemingly unfazed.

Langford was a formidable fighter but Dempsey has clear things in his advantage-he is the more flexible fighter and able to adapt better-his speed, elusiveness, height and ball of hooking energy on the inside would probably overwhelm Sam and have him out come the mid rounds-Not too say Dempsey does not have problems while doing this-I just view the fight as him having more tools to work in his favour.

-I would again like to note though that this prediction is from what I know of both fighters-I in no way qualify myself as an expert of Langford as not enough of him is available to be 80% accurate/fair.