Sam Langford vs Rocky Marciano

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:16

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: ur wrong,

the pre 1954 marciano was a devastating one punch KO artist. however goldman tinkered with his style and marciano lost some power because of it which is why in his later fights, he knocked guys out with attrition.

make no mistake about it, the pre 1954 marciano was a devastating one punch KO artist who knocked guys out with 1 or 2 punches....

rex layne
jersey joe walcott
joe louis
harry kid mathews

all were knocked out by 1-2 punches

too bad we dont have marcianos early fights on tape. he probably scored some devastating knockouts.

rex layne took bob satterfields best punches, but one marciano right hand sheered laynes front teeth off at the nubs and made layne do a delayed reaction before falling to the ground OUT COLD!
A prime Marciano koing Rex Layne(who he was clobbering) with one shot and an old Sam Langford knocking out Harry Wills(who was clobbering HIM) with one shot is a very different thing.

ok wut about marciano knocking out jersey joe walcott out COLD with perhaps the greatest punch in history. walcott is most likely better than harry wills. i rate both in my top 20.

old langford? 31 year old langford still had his full power in 1914 when he flattened wills. one thing to remember, harry wills was still a bit green when he fought langford in 1914 yet he beat sam. sam wasnt that far gone in 1914,

i dont think wills-langford compares to the marciano-walcott knockout

By their first fight, Sam was already a 12-year, 134 bout veteran. Not gone, but not a spring chicken either. By their second, he was even older and had more mileage.

Rocky was a powerful puncher. I have no delusions about that. Yes, the Walcott punch was a beauty. From what I have seen and read though, Rocky usually ground you down before applying the finisher. With the exception of Walcott he was beating those guys handily before whacking them out. The finisher was just the logical progression of the ebb and flow. Sam could be getting beaten and then out of nowhere hit you with a punch that finished things. He did it many times. I only saw Rocky do that once(vs. Walcott).

Wills was in the 5th year of his career when he was AGAIN ko'd by Langford. The first fight you can argue that he was green, not the second.

Old Joe Walcott had already been KO'd several times before fighting Rocky, so yes, I do think that Sam's KOs of the much larger and stronger Harry Wills are much more impressive. Sam was the only guy who really KO'd Wills and he did it twice(The Kid Cotton fight was a cut and the Jim Johnson fight was a broken arm). What is more impressive? KO'ing a guy who's already been splattered numerous times? Or pulverizing someone who has never been before(or would be again until Uzcudun turned the trick against a shot Wills)?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:18

Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
Grimm wrote: How many times have you seen Langford knock somebody stiff?

Well, there's only a few films of him that exist(I own 2 of them) so not too many times. I guess that means it never happened, right?
No.

It means you don't know anything about Langford knocking anybody stiff with one punch KO's.

By his record we can tell he could punch.

Ko's are still Ko's and back then it took a hell of a lot for them to stop the fight so yes he could punch.

But like Marciano?

That's another story.

Time for you to go to your local library and look up some Sam Langford fights on microfilm. Read the accounts and get back to me.

And don't tell me that you already have. If you had we wouldn't be having this debate.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:22

Decagon wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:A "firm" punch? "Rocky punches harder"??*LMAO!* You and Decagon know very little about Sam Langford.

Rocky was a guy who usually clubbed you into submission. Langford usually knocked you stiff with a single punch.
That's ridiculous. Marciano had a hell of a lot of one-punch power. While Sam Langford would probably be a bigger puncher, pound-for-pound than Mariano, Langford was really only a middleweight or a light heavyweight. When Marciano was 188 pounds, he was a finely chiseled fighting machine. Langford was never even close to being that cut as a heavyweight or even a light heavyweight.
Nero3000 wrote:Even Harry Greb- not known to back down from a challenge- laughed and said "Do you want me to commit suicide?" when Langford's name came up as a possible opponent.
Yeah, and in what year did he say that? When Langford was coming up, he wanted no part of Jim Jeffries. Young fighters that are smart stay away from larger, tougher, more experienced foes. Langford did. Why wouldn't you expect Greb to?

"Really only a middleweight or LH"? Tell that to Harry Wills

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:22

Nero3000 wrote:
Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
Well, there's only a few films of him that exist(I own 2 of them) so not too many times. I guess that means it never happened, right?
No.

It means you don't know anything about Langford knocking anybody stiff with one punch KO's.

By his record we can tell he could punch.

Ko's are still Ko's and back then it took a hell of a lot for them to stop the fight so yes he could punch.

But like Marciano?

That's another story.

Time for you to go to your local library and look up some Sam Langford fights on microfilm. Read the accounts and get back to me.

And don't tell me that you already have. If you had we wouldn't be having this debate.

What the hell would micro film prove?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:25

Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
Grimm wrote: No.

It means you don't know anything about Langford knocking anybody stiff with one punch KO's.

By his record we can tell he could punch.

Ko's are still Ko's and back then it took a hell of a lot for them to stop the fight so yes he could punch.

But like Marciano?

That's another story.

Time for you to go to your local library and look up some Sam Langford fights on microfilm. Read the accounts and get back to me.

And don't tell me that you already have. If you had we wouldn't be having this debate.
What the hell would micro film prove?

Case and point.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:31

Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
Grimm wrote: No.

It means you don't know anything about Langford knocking anybody stiff with one punch KO's.

By his record we can tell he could punch.

Ko's are still Ko's and back then it took a hell of a lot for them to stop the fight so yes he could punch.

But like Marciano?

That's another story.

Time for you to go to your local library and look up some Sam Langford fights on microfilm. Read the accounts and get back to me.

And don't tell me that you already have. If you had we wouldn't be having this debate.
What the hell would micro film prove?

If it's not on ESPN it didn't happen, right?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:34

Just for the record folks. I don't know who would win in a fight between these two. I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.

Sam Langford was quite possibly the most feared slugger of all time.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 11 Apr 2006, 21:28

Nero3000 wrote:
If it's not on ESPN it didn't happen, right?

No if it's not on ESPN then you don't know how it happened.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 11 Apr 2006, 21:30

Nero3000 wrote:Just for the record folks. I don't know who would win in a fight between these two. I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.

Sam Langford was quite possibly the most feared slugger of all time.

And Langford may be a very feard slugger but Langford fought at alot of different weights Marciano consistently knocked out heavyweights.

So Langford p4p better puncher.

But Marciano better puncher.

sockdolager · Post by **sockdolager** » 11 Apr 2006, 22:35

Nero3000 wrote:
sockdollanger wrote:Yeah Rocky might be too tough a HW for Langford to handle. Langford wouldnt be able to withstand the barrage of shots from Marciano.
Marciano KO 6.

this may seem like I am totally underestimating Langford, but in 1911 he was only around 160-170 Lbs. Marciano would be huge compared to him.
Harry Wills was about 6'3 and 220 lbs. A past-prime Langford ko'd him with a single punch.

Same with George Godfrey.

hey retard, he asked about a matchup btwn a 1911 Langford vs Marciano. That would be like a super middle vs a cruiser. If you think Marciano could be KO by a man that size than you are mistaken. I guess all those films of Rocky being knocked out has swayed your judgement.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 00:29

I only saw Rocky do that once(vs. Walcott)

i suggest watching rex layne, harry kid mathews knockouts. ONE RIGHT HAND KNOCKED REX LAYNE OUT COLD! even nat fleischer rated rocky marcianos power up with joe louis and jack dempsey. 2 left hooks knocked out harry kid mathews. THE ONLY TIME IN MATHEWS 100 PRO FIGHT CAREER HE WAS EVER KNOCKED OUT.

the pre 1954 rocky marciano hit harder than sam langford. however the later version of marciano probably did not.

as for walcott, the only two men to ever knock out a prime jersey joe were none other than joe louis and rocky marciano. walcott also faced some hard punchers. so i think its safe to say walcott had a good chin.

Not sure I agree with that statement. You might want to look at Wills record again, because he had a pretty amazing run.

wills was great, theres more to him than just his record. however i slightly favor walcott, though wills was awesome. i rate wills # 18 greatest heavyweight of all time.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 00:30

KO'ing a guy who's already been splattered numerous times?

if u honestly are going to hold walcotts losses pre 1944 against him, then u dont know much about boxing nero.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 00:32

I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.

p4p langford, but as a heavyweight puncher i give the edge to rocky.

a pre 1954 rocky marciano that is, before goldman tinkered with his style

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 00:34

september 1953 issue from THE RING

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARDEST HITTER OF ALL
By AL BUCK
Of all the heavyweight kinds, Rocky Marciano, the current heavyweight champion, is the hardest hitter.
This is not only my opinion. It is shared by many others. Jack Dempsey has called Marciano the best one-punch fighter he has ever seen.
Rocky's arms are short, but they are big and powerful. He has the sloping shoulders of a puncher.
The short arms are a handicap in that Marciano has to bore in to get within punching range. As a result he gets hit more often than he would otherwise. There is nothing fancy about Rocky. He isn't a master boxer, and perhaps not even a good one.
He has adopted a style that fits him physically. Once he gets his shot- and he only has to get one- Marciano becomes a destructive force.
Marciano is a one-punch fighter with his right hand. He is the best one-punch fighter I have seen. Joe Louis was a great finisher. Once he had an opponent hurt he hit quickly and with tremendous force. The result was a long string of sensational knockouts.
Rocky Marciano doesn't have to finish off an opponent. One smash and the referee counts ten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

as u see rocky was very much a one punch KO artist

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 00:47

my final pick is marciano 15 split langford- in the end, i favor the bigger, stronger, harder punching marciano over the more skilled, faster, hard hitting langford. I see marcianos volume of punches and strength as the key factors too shoving sam around and outworking sam, while sam's straight fast punches and counter punches will do lots of damage. in the end, marciano wins a very close one due to workrate and strength. langford was very durable and smart, so i see him lasting the distance

the 1911-1913 langford was around 175-185lb and at his peak. he was not in the 160s then. in 1914, he was weighing as much as 200lb.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 01:55

sockdollanger wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
sockdollanger wrote:Yeah Rocky might be too tough a HW for Langford to handle. Langford wouldnt be able to withstand the barrage of shots from Marciano.
Marciano KO 6.

this may seem like I am totally underestimating Langford, but in 1911 he was only around 160-170 Lbs. Marciano would be huge compared to him.
Harry Wills was about 6'3 and 220 lbs. A past-prime Langford ko'd him with a single punch.

Same with George Godfrey.
hey retard, he asked about a matchup btwn a 1911 Langford vs Marciano. That would be like a super middle vs a cruiser. If you think Marciano could be KO by a man that size than you are mistaken

Where did you see me say that?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 01:57

Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
If it's not on ESPN it didn't happen, right?
No if it's not on ESPN then you don't know how it happened.

You're right. All the newspaper accounts and AP reports on his one-punch KO's, though unanimous, are all wrong. Good research Grimm.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:03

Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:Just for the record folks. I don't know who would win in a fight between these two. I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.

Sam Langford was quite possibly the most feared slugger of all time.
And Langford may be a very feard slugger but Langford fought at alot of different weights Marciano consistently knocked out heavyweights.

So Langford p4p better puncher.

But Marciano better puncher.

Another gem of discernment from Grimm. Ever heard of Gunboat Smith? Fireman Jim Flynn? Jim Barry? Harry Wills? Bill Tate? Joe Jeanette? Sam McVey?

All heavyweights pal. And all knocked out by Sam Langford.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:04

Nero3000 wrote:
Grimm wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:Just for the record folks. I don't know who would win in a fight between these two. I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.

Sam Langford was quite possibly the most feared slugger of all time.
And Langford may be a very feard slugger but Langford fought at alot of different weights Marciano consistently knocked out heavyweights.

So Langford p4p better puncher.

But Marciano better puncher.

Another gem of discernment from Grimm. Ever heard of Gunboat Smith? Fireman Jim Flynn? Jim Barry? Harry Wills? Bill Tate? Joe Jeanette? Sam McVey?

All heavyweights pal. And all knocked out by Sam Langford.

whats ur point?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:06

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
KO'ing a guy who's already been splattered numerous times?

if u honestly are going to hold walcotts losses pre 1944 against him, then u dont know much about boxing nero.

Point I'm making is that Joe Walcott had already been knocked-out numerous times before Rocky turned the trick. So his being knocked-out again is hardly shocking. Unexpected, yes but not shocking.

Harry Wills had NEVER been knocked-out and never would again for over a decade.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:08

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.
p4p langford, but as a heavyweight puncher i give the edge to rocky.

a pre 1954 rocky marciano that is, before goldman tinkered with his style

I don't see how Goldman lessened his power. Rocky is as anatomically perfect a puncher as I've ever seen. He pivots on the balls of his feet beautifully and gets maximum leverage into each blow. How could he have possibly hit harder or with more balance and leverage?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:18

Nero3000 wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
I just took exception to those who claimed that Rocky was the harder puncher when the evidence clearly supports the contrary.
p4p langford, but as a heavyweight puncher i give the edge to rocky.

a pre 1954 rocky marciano that is, before goldman tinkered with his style

I don't see how Goldman lessened his power. Rocky is as anatomically perfect a puncher as I've ever seen. He pivots on the balls of his feet beautifully and gets maximum leverage into each blow. How could he have possibly hit harder or with more balance and leverage?

goldman shortened rocky's punches and polished rocky's defense and because of it he lost some power. goldman even admits it, read rockys book. rocky doesnt unload his punches anymore(noticeable on film) like he does in early 1950s. rocky stopped throwing big haymakers in late career, its clear on film and from reading articles that goldman tinkered with his style causing rocky to lose power. notice how it takes rocky a while to get moore, charles, cockell out of there and only 1-2 punches to knockout walcott, louis, mathews, layne.

pre 1954 marciano loaded up a lot more with 1 punch, and fought more straight up.

rocky was a lot more methodical in the mid 1950s, while in the early 1950s he seemed faster and more of a one punch KO artist

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:19

Decagon wrote:But how can you say that Wills clearly had a better chin than Walcott? There's only so much you can learn from Boxrec. Yes, Wills didn't lose by KO between the Jim Johnson and Jack Sharkey fights, but look who he was fighting! During the 1920s, Wills feasted on has-beens.

Fred Fulton was a has-been?

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Nero3000 wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: p4p langford, but as a heavyweight puncher i give the edge to rocky.

a pre 1954 rocky marciano that is, before goldman tinkered with his style

I don't see how Goldman lessened his power. Rocky is as anatomically perfect a puncher as I've ever seen. He pivots on the balls of his feet beautifully and gets maximum leverage into each blow. How could he have possibly hit harder or with more balance and leverage?

o its clearly noticeable. open ur eyes. goldman shortened rocky's punches and polished rocky's defense and because of it he lost some power. goldman even admits it, read rockys book. rocky doesnt unload his punches anymore(noticeable on film) like he does in early 1950s. rocky stopped throwing big haymakers in late career, its clear on film and from reading articles that goldman tinkered with his style causing rocky to lose power. notice how it takes rocky a while to get moore, charles, cockell out of there and only 1-2 punches to knockout walcott, louis, mathews, layne.

pre 1954 marciano loaded up a lot more with 1 punch, and fought more straight up.

I've opened my eyes and watched the films many times. Looks to me like he's still throwing bombs with all his leverage. But you have put more time and energy into studying the nuances of his career, so I'll defer to you on this.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 12 Apr 2006, 02:26

Decagon wrote:Fred Fulton? He was a poor man's Abe Simon.

As I've stated before, you were put on this forum for either comic relief or to keep things "stirred-up" by making statements like the one above(or "Billy Conn was a good puncher". That was a beaut.). I'll go with the latter.