sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Feb 2006, 13:55

1912 5'7 185-200lb 75" reach Sam Langford

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/langford.jpg

vs

2004 6'8 250lb 80" reach Vitali Quitschko

http://www.fehmarn-info.de/pics/Vitali- ... _klein.jpg

Ill take Langford TKO 13

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 08 Feb 2006, 14:23

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1912 5'7 185-200lb 75" reach Sam Langford

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/langford.jpg

vs

2004 6'8 250lb 80" reach Vitali Quitschko

http://www.fehmarn-info.de/pics/Vitali- ... _klein.jpg

Ill take Langford TKO 13

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Very funny Brock. Funniest thread you've made yet. Keep it up, I love the laughs!

barry · Post by **barry** » 08 Feb 2006, 15:55

I'll take Langford by KO in 7...Vitali could not fight past four, or five rounds and he didn't have the power to hurt Langford enough to get him out early. Langford chops him down like a tree and either knocks him out, or Vitali quits.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 08 Feb 2006, 16:01

Klitschko TKO4, because he's white.

ferocity · Post by **ferocity** » 08 Feb 2006, 17:07

DoubleM wrote:Klitschko TKO4, because he's white.

Since your brought it up. Its been years since I heard anyone mention the phrase, The Great White Hope. The European fighters are taking over the heavyweight division. And one Puerto Rican/American -non black P.R- was Champion.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 08 Feb 2006, 17:28

With the vast height differential I actually think it'd be harder for Klitschko, a predominantly straight shooter, to hit Langford then for Sam to hit Vitali, who would just be focusing on the body anyway.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 08 Feb 2006, 22:40

No one has a softer spot for the older fighters than me but I have a hard time with the size differential to let my pining for the olden days get the better of my good senses. I suppose if your going to bet on Langford over a Klitschko you'd have to call him over Valuev too.

Wouldnt this be similar to a Buster Douglas Roberto Duran Matchup? You really gonna take Duran? Hmm well maybe ...but it sure is a mind stretch. If you were forced to put your house up as a bet...you still going to bet on Langford? I'm strugglin with it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Feb 2006, 23:00

BoxBuzz wrote:No one has a softer spot for the older fighters than me but I have a hard time with the size differential to let my pining for the olden days get the better of my good senses. I suppose if your going to bet on Langford over a Klitschko you'd have to call him over Valuev too.

Wouldnt this be similar to a Buster Douglas Roberto Duran Matchup? You really gonna take Duran? Hmm well maybe ...but it sure is a mind stretch. If you were forced to put your house up as a bet...you still going to bet on Langford? I'm strugglin with it.

135lb to 230lb is ALOT bigger difference than 185-200lb to 250lb.

as u go up in weight, weight becomes less of a factor

so 155lb to 185lb is a lot different than 185lb to 215lb. the 185lb man has a lot more advantage over the 155lb man than the 215lb man has over the 185lb man. its body percentages

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 09 Feb 2006, 19:25

OK I was thinking a middleweight Duran.....and I was exaggerating a bit but my point should not be missed. This seems a very big difference to overcome. I'm assuming I could still replace Klit with Valuev and you'd still want Langford. I'm just trying to get my mind around the physics here.

theone · Post by **theone** » 09 Feb 2006, 21:22

Vitali very easy decision or stoppage by 6. This diefying of the old timers is getting ridiculous.

barry · Post by **barry** » 10 Feb 2006, 00:16

>>>Vitali very easy decision or stoppage by 6. This diefying of the old timers is getting ridiculous.<<<

What's ridiculous is someone like you trying to make some of the very medicore fighters seem great. Klitschko didn't have the heart, or toughness to last against Chris Byrd, who was really not much different in size than Langford, so the size theory, as usual, means very little. Klitschko wouldn't stand a chance against an offensive machine like Langford, he would either be knocked out, or quit...one of the two, but he certainly wouldn't have the guts to stick it out in the rough fight that Langford would take to him!

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 10 Feb 2006, 08:30

Langford on points or a late Klitschko stoppage.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Feb 2006, 16:14

After rewatching Langford vs Flynn, I confidently pick Langford. Sam was actually a good defensive fighter and Klitschko would have a hard time hitting a guy so much shorter. Plus, Langford's work-rate was amazing. Klitschko, a stamina challenged fighter, would simply not be able to keep up, esp. when you add Langford's body shots he'd be ripping in there . . .

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 10 Feb 2006, 16:18

dempseyfire wrote:With the vast height differential I actually think it'd be harder for Klitschko, a predominantly straight shooter, to hit Langford then for Sam to hit Vitali, who would just be focusing on the body anyway.

This is a very good point. Frankly I dont know enough about Langford to pick a winner. And I dont want to come off with a half cocked un educated opinion. But I do know that shorter fighters who are good defensively can be VERY problematic.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 10 Feb 2006, 16:21

can't see langford hurting vitali.he took some big shots off sanders and lewis without going down.i think vitali would take sam out in about 6 rounds,just too big,too strong and too powerful.i've only got the langford-flynn fight courtesy of mr snell,are their any others kicking about?

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 29 Sep 2007, 11:46

Vitali quits like he does against any other decent fighter. I honestly think Bernard Hopkins would either KO Quitali or make Vitali quit on his stool.

Alabama_Man · Post by **Alabama_Man** » 29 Sep 2007, 11:51

Decagon wrote:
Alabama_Man wrote:Vitali quits like he does against any other decent fighter. I honestly think Bernard Hopkins would either KO Quitali or make Vitali quit on his stool.
Idiotic. Stop following me.

Vitali quits a lot, what's your problem?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 29 Sep 2007, 17:11

barry wrote:>>>Vitali very easy decision or stoppage by 6. This diefying of the old timers is getting ridiculous.<<<

What's ridiculous is someone like you trying to make some of the very medicore fighters seem great. Klitschko didn't have the heart, or toughness to last against Chris Byrd, who was really not much different in size than Langford, so the size theory, as usual, means very little. Klitschko wouldn't stand a chance against an offensive machine like Langford, he would either be knocked out, or quit...one of the two, but he certainly wouldn't have the guts to stick it out in the rough fight that Langford would take to him!

OK if your going with grit determination and perserverance I could be persueded. Sam had all that....and he'd better have all that because he would be taking down quite a big wall with this guy. Your Byrd/Klit comparison makes some sense HOWEVER did Byrd inflict the rotator issue or did it just "Happen"? Did Byrd beat Vitali or did his inability to deal with the pain do him in? Could Sam inflict as much pain as a torn rotator? If he could...then I agree Vitali would not have the intestinal fortitude to continue.....obviously.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 29 Sep 2007, 18:56

Kostya Tszyu(or JCC) vs Antonio Tarver

You all say Antonio sucks ass... Would you pick him to lose either match?

Hell, Prime KT or JCC vs Antonio NOW.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 29 Sep 2007, 19:28

BoxBuzz wrote:
barry wrote:>>>Vitali very easy decision or stoppage by 6. This diefying of the old timers is getting ridiculous.<<<

What's ridiculous is someone like you trying to make some of the very medicore fighters seem great. Klitschko didn't have the heart, or toughness to last against Chris Byrd, who was really not much different in size than Langford, so the size theory, as usual, means very little. Klitschko wouldn't stand a chance against an offensive machine like Langford, he would either be knocked out, or quit...one of the two, but he certainly wouldn't have the guts to stick it out in the rough fight that Langford would take to him!

OK if your going with grit determination and perserverance I could be persueded. Sam had all that....and he'd better have all that because he would be taking down quite a big wall with this guy. Your Byrd/Klit comparison makes some sense HOWEVER did Byrd inflict the rotator issue or did it just "Happen"? Did Byrd beat Vitali or did his inability to deal with the pain do him in? Could Sam inflict as much pain as a torn rotator? If he could...then I agree Vitali would not have the intestinal fortitude to continue.....obviously.

I am forever the eager student...and I mean this. So I will repeat my inquisitve thought......Decagon and barry, you both seem to be saying that the rotator issue is something that was "imposed" due to style. Decagon you are very specific that Byrd's style tended to create this issue versus it being "flukish". If so then Langford could certainly be depended upon to deliver at least as good a performance as Byrd. (OK I'm the master of the understatement).

To continue......I'm mystified that such a thing can be part of a "likely outcome" based on styles. I have always thought that Vitali would beat Byrd 2 out 3 times....or more and that the issue of his loss was purely a fluke. I took it as further proof that when Wlad settled the hash later that it proved the flukish nature of the event. Decagon you seem to be taking a different stand...barry do you agree? I just want to understand this a bit better. I may come out agreeing or disagreeing with your feedback but I intend to listen to it and attempt to assimilate it.

Do you see Byrd being able to repeat that performance with Vitali?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 30 Sep 2007, 15:08

Regardless of the shoulder injury Vitali was not dominating Byrd in any sense. I had him leading on the scorecards after 9 but the fight was much close than Lederman and the official judges had it.

If feather-fisted Byrd can be competetive with Vitali P4P all time great and knockout puncher Langford sure can beat big brother

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 30 Sep 2007, 18:31

sam langford was knocked out by a welterweight in his prime.
i hate klitschko but come on vitali would knock him out cold.
if not kill him

dream fights are great but this would only be a nightmare for sam

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 30 Sep 2007, 19:11

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1912 5'7 185-200lb 75" reach Sam Langford

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Images/langford.jpg

vs

2004 6'8 250lb 80" reach Vitali Quitschko

http://www.fehmarn-info.de/pics/Vitali- ... _klein.jpg

Ill take Langford TKO 13

Pity that Brockton only comes back when he's drunk.

donnellon · Post by **donnellon** » 30 Sep 2007, 19:52

kid brown....now there was an ATG super HW!

MEISINGER · Post by **MEISINGER** » 30 Sep 2007, 20:19

Decagon wrote:
MEISINGER wrote:sam langford was knocked out by a welterweight in his prime.
i hate klitschko but come on vitali would knock him out cold.
if not kill him

dream fights are great but this would only be a nightmare for sam
I've never heard anyone say that Langford was at his prime ni 1906. He was around 150 pounds, and so was Thompkins.

langford lost by ko to young peter jackson at the time that sam had a record of 35-6-10
langford had already dad 51 pro fights(documented probably more)
and was 23 years old.
he was no novice entering this bought.

he would not have the whiskers to hold up to a 250 pound power house

sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

Re: sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

re

re

Re: re

Re: re

Re: sam langford vs vitali klitscshko