Sam Langford.. A born loser.

Sorry if i might upset one or two pretentious guys on here, but Sam Langford was a born loser.
He was called the Greatest fighter nobody knew... and why?? he was an embarrasment to the sport...
He ended up blind and still fighting so please he was the Gary Glitter of Boxing (i know different crime)
maybe Barrymore.. Langford was A LOSER..
I am a big Boxing fan, however people do tend to wear rose tinted glasses when Langford is mentioned.

That's classy, implying that any who might disagree with you must be ' pretentious. '

You haven't really made any points. Why was he a born loser?

Josh either you're on the wind up or you have had your very own "super sunday".

touché old boy

Without sounding too pretentious why was he a born loser? You were a bit vague.

HumanWindmill wrote:That's classy, implying that any who might disagree with you must be ' pretentious. '

If rating Sam Langford marks one down as pretentious it's a tag I'm willing to wear.

Excuse me.. What did he win????????

I want to know why he's being compared to Gary Glitter??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I want to know why he's being compared to Gary Glitter??

or Barrymore. When was Sam ever a gameshow host?

Oh, so your article is 'No title, no talent'. Not the greatest I've seen.

Joshsmith wrote:Excuse me.. What did he win????????

The only titles he was allowed to fight for - Coloured heavyweight championship of the world and the heavyweight championship of Mexico.

My goodness ! Why has my computer screen just turned the most heavenly shade of pink ?

Some fantasy matches, who's your money on

Featherweight- Jim Driscoll v Istvan Kovacs

Middleweight - Charley Burley v Chris Pyatt

Light Heavy - Ezzard Charles v Leoonzer Barber

Heavyweight - Harry Wills v Francesco Damiani

It's all about the titles

The only titles he was allowed to fight for ..

He fought Jack Johnson and guess what................. HE LOST..

Is there anyway you can fit a child lock to Boxrec?

More pressingly I'd like to know why YI man pulled basically the same article as Waingros that I wrote earlier off 606 and is finding it amusing on the Ortiz thread Union's use of a new gadget on here to slag posters off...

Or should I say me off specifically!!!

No one would think I was getting preferential treatment hey..

Joshsmith wrote:The only titles he was allowed to fight for ..

He fought Jack Johnson and guess what................. HE LOST..

He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail.

Joshsmith wrote:The only titles he was allowed to fight for ..

He fought Jack Johnson and guess what................. HE LOST..

Was that for a title?

rowley wrote:Is there anyway you can fit a child lock to Boxrec?

You have a great idea there Rowley. Dragons Den?

I'm out

Hang on here... He WAS born, and he DID lose some fights. Spot on article!

He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail..

Oh yes old boy but there is no need to bore you with History as in your head You make your own History up Rose tinted glasses i call it..
A born LOSER fights at welterweight against a Heavyweight

What 50lbs between friends..

Can this guy really be 40 years of age? Or did he think he was responding to a different question when he filled in this number?

What 50lbs between friends...

Nothing i bet me and you could get along fine...

Joshsmith wrote:He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail..

Oh yes old boy but there is no need to bore you with History as in your head You make your own History up Rose tinted glasses i call it..
A born LOSER fights at welterweight against a Heavyweight

Don't be such an ass.

It's easy to check whether what I've said is or isn't true.

Then again, you're the guy who wanted to know why Holyfield didn't figure in anybody's top ten lightheavies. Personally, since you patently know sod all about Langford, I would have thought that writing an article about him would be ............................... what's the word again ?

Begins with a ' P '

Is that a pop at me Captain???

No, the fellow who wrote the article, who gives his age as 40. You 40 as well?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Joshsmith wrote:He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail..

Oh yes old boy but there is no need to bore you with History as in your head You make your own History up Rose tinted glasses i call it..
A born LOSER fights at welterweight against a Heavyweight

Don't be such an ass.

It's easy to check whether what I've said is or isn't true.

Then again, you're the guy who wanted to know why Holyfield didn't figure in anybody's top ten lightheavies. Personally, since you patently know sod all about Langford, I would have thought that writing an article about him would be ............................... what's the word again ?

Begins with a ' P '

Windy rough weekend?

I've not seen you this angry since the Dempsey argument.... Oh know what have I done.

Declared my hand haven't I...??

only look 30 though..

trottb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Joshsmith wrote:He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail..

Oh yes old boy but there is no need to bore you with History as in your head You make your own History up Rose tinted glasses i call it..
A born LOSER fights at welterweight against a Heavyweight

Don't be such an ass.

It's easy to check whether what I've said is or isn't true.

Then again, you're the guy who wanted to know why Holyfield didn't figure in anybody's top ten lightheavies. Personally, since you patently know sod all about Langford, I would have thought that writing an article about him would be ............................... what's the word again ?

Begins with a ' P '

Windy rough weekend?

I've not seen you this angry since the Dempsey argument.... Oh know what have I done.

Ha !

All done with a smile, trott. ( So far, anyway. )

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Declared my hand haven't I...??

only look 30 though..

stone?

Life begins, etc, etc. Personally, I think it's a great decade.

Not that you're biased

HumanWindmill wrote:

trottb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Joshsmith wrote:He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail..

Oh yes old boy but there is no need to bore you with History as in your head You make your own History up Rose tinted glasses i call it..
A born LOSER fights at welterweight against a Heavyweight

Don't be such an ass.

It's easy to check whether what I've said is or isn't true.

Then again, you're the guy who wanted to know why Holyfield didn't figure in anybody's top ten lightheavies. Personally, since you patently know sod all about Langford, I would have thought that writing an article about him would be ............................... what's the word again ?

Begins with a ' P '

Windy rough weekend?

I've not seen you this angry since the Dempsey argument.... Oh know what have I done.

Ha !

All done with a smile, trott. ( So far, anyway. )

Oh no would have been more suitable but as it's a Sunday I;m sure you'll let me off.

At all.

trottb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

trottb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Joshsmith wrote:He was a welterweight when he fought Johnson. I see you've researched your article with your customary attention to detail..

Oh yes old boy but there is no need to bore you with History as in your head You make your own History up Rose tinted glasses i call it..
A born LOSER fights at welterweight against a Heavyweight

Don't be such an ass.

It's easy to check whether what I've said is or isn't true.

Then again, you're the guy who wanted to know why Holyfield didn't figure in anybody's top ten lightheavies. Personally, since you patently know sod all about Langford, I would have thought that writing an article about him would be ............................... what's the word again ?

Begins with a ' P '

Windy rough weekend?

I've not seen you this angry since the Dempsey argument.... Oh know what have I done.

Ha !

All done with a smile, trott. ( So far, anyway. )

Oh no would have been more suitable but as it's a Sunday I;m sure you'll let me off.

Didn't notice, mate. Still trying to get used to these rose tinted glasses.

Windmill.........or Windbag... just because this article is not a thousand word piece and does not stir a twitch between your legs. Langford was a LOSER.. in your rose tinted glasses he no doubt was a great ok . This is my opinion..

Joshsmith wrote:Windmill.........or Windbag... just because this article is not a thousand word piece and does not stir a twitch between your legs. Langford was a LOSER.. in your rose tinted glasses he no doubt was a great ok . This is my opinion..

Go and finish puberty elsewhere, and take your foul mouth with you. This is a forum for civilised discussion.

Joshsmith wrote:Windmill.........or Windbag... just because this article is not a thousand word piece and does not stir a twitch between your legs. Langford was a LOSER.. in your rose tinted glasses he no doubt was a great ok . This is my opinion..

Josh the only positive I've taken from this article so far is that your location is abroad. Please keep it that way

Such a loser he warrants an article nearly 100 years after he was fighting...

HumanWindmill wrote:

Joshsmith wrote:Windmill.........or Windbag... just because this article is not a thousand word piece and does not stir a twitch between your legs. Langford was a LOSER.. in your rose tinted glasses he no doubt was a great ok . This is my opinion..

Go and finish puberty elsewhere, and take your foul mouth with you. This is a forum for civilised discussion.

When did this happen? Someone should have sent PMs!!!

prettyboykev wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Joshsmith wrote:Windmill.........or Windbag... just because this article is not a thousand word piece and does not stir a twitch between your legs. Langford was a LOSER.. in your rose tinted glasses he no doubt was a great ok . This is my opinion..

Go and finish puberty elsewhere, and take your foul mouth with you. This is a forum for civilised discussion.

When did this happen? Someone should have sent PMs!!!

You know what they say, kev : " If at first ......"

Windmill........... Windbag........
I expected a more valedictorian speech than that... and you a Admin man???

"The hell I feared no man. There was one man, he was even smaller than I, I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford" - Jack Dempsey

In my book he was just about the greatest fighter of them all. - Abe Attell

I'd pick him to knock out Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Rocky Marciano. When he was not under wraps he was a ring marvel - Frank Erne

Personally am going to give their opinions a little more credence than yours Josh, articulate and excellently argued as it is.

Can articles like this be made a banning offence?

Notice Frank Erne left Tony Tubbs off the list!!

Joshsmith wrote:Windmill........... Windbag........
I expected a more valedictorian speech than that... and you a Admin man???

Well, now Tosh smith ( perfect occupation for you, ) being an admin doesn't diminish my ability to see an offensive comment when it oozes out of a sore.

So sorry you were disappointed by my comment, and even more sorry that I wasn't disappointed by yours.

Then again you are, by occupation, by name and by nature, a Tosh smith.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Notice Frank Erne left Tony Tubbs off the list!!

Even he didn't rate him that highly Truss

Tosh Smith............. you lose me old boy??
Today is Sunday.... 10 years since 9/11 so they say.. so what happened on the 9th of november??
You disappoint Windbag.. opinion is opinion My eyes Langford a LOSER and if you know Boxing he was the Elephant in the room..