Sam Langford vs Rocky Marciano

[The Great John L]

Not sure I agree with that statement. Lets see, Toney is a 37 year old fat middleweight and he can beat, or at least hold his own with any HW today. I know Langford started out in the 130's, but I beleive that most of his early fights were fought at WW, so there isn't much diffeence between Lanfords rise and Toneys rise. And you can also add Roy Jones who probably could have beaten a few other modern ranked HW's in addition to Ruiz.

There is a big difference between Toney and Jones moving up five weight classes to heavyweight and Langford, if using modern weight classes for comparison, moving up NINE weight classes. If Jones and Toney fought in Langfords era they probably would have had to keep fighting each other for lack of compitition.

Maybe you missed one of the key points and that is that Langford really had virtually no fights at LW and fought primarily as a WW early in his career, which started when he was 19. And if you check RJJ's career you'll see that he fought in the mid 150's early in his career which started when he was 20. By the time Langford was over 20 he was fighting as a solid WW. So I think you're either not looking at facts, or simply ignoring them to support your opinion.

Nine weight classes!!!! Oh that's right there are all those jr and sr titles today. All I see is Langford going from WW (mid 140's) to HW and RJJ going from Jr MW (mid 150s') to HW. I'll say Jr MW since you seem fixed on the myriad of "modern" weight classes. So maybe you should try again to explain why there is such a big difference between RJJ and Langford. I'm not sure anyone other than yourself can see much of a difference.

As to Toney, he's a much better example, because he didn't really grow into a HW, but simply ate his way to HW as is common among the finely tuned athletes prevalent in the crop of current HWs. As I stated before, he's a fat 37 year old MW and he's arguably one of the top 5 HW's in the world. So I have to admit that Toney proves it's even easier to rise through ranks today, because he doesn't even bother to train.

I'll try to ignore your comment about the "compitition" in Lanford's era, as it was clearly nothing more than an amateurish attempt at humor from someone devoid of any knowledge of boxing history.

[sockdolager]

ok how about RJJ vs Langford at 160, 175, and HW?

I believe that Langford got better w/ his weight going up.

At 160, I think RJJ can out point him, but at each weight higher we would be looking at Langford KOs, especialy at HW. Anyone else agree here?

[dr_devious]

ok how about RJJ vs Langford at 160, 175, and HW?

I believe that Langford got better w/ his weight going up.

At 160, I think RJJ can out point him, but at each weight higher we would be looking at Langford KOs, especialy at HW. Anyone else agree here?

Langford would KO Jones at whatever weight he fought him; Jones hasnt got the chin to deal with Langford who would be fast enough to get to him.

[theone]

I'll try to ignore your comment about the "compitition" in Lanford's era, as it was clearly nothing more than an amateurish attempt at humor from someone devoid of any knowledge of boxing history.

Ignore it if you like but its the truth. Have ever seen a fighter of Langfords era fight with the skill of either Toney or Jones? The fighters back then look amaturish by comparision on the films that exist. The quality of the films have nothing to do with it either. Watch the films on slow-mo to eliminate the herky jerky effect and concentrate on their technique. You'll see what I'm talking about.
The fact that a fighter as clumsy and unskilled as Ketchel could dominate his division with just ko power speaks volumes. I couldnt picture any fighter of that era landing more than a glancing blow on Roy Jones.

[The Great John L]

I'll try to ignore your comment about the "compitition" in Lanford's era, as it was clearly nothing more than an amateurish attempt at humor from someone devoid of any knowledge of boxing history.

Ignore it if you like but its the truth. Have ever seen a fighter of Langfords era fight with the skill of either Toney or Jones? The fighters back then look amaturish by comparision on the films that exist. The quality of the films have nothing to do with it either. Watch the films on slow-mo to eliminate the herky jerky effect and concentrate on their technique. You'll see what I'm talking about.
The fact that a fighter as clumsy and unskilled as Ketchel could dominate his division with just ko power speaks volumes. I couldnt picture any fighter of that era landing more than a glancing blow on Roy Jones.

I agree completely that the styles used during that era are different than “modern” techniques, but this is also true of the styles used in the 70’s and current “techniques”. I wonder whether you have ever considered the possibility that it’s the different styles of the eras that create the opinions common among casual boxing observers that boxers today are better? Have you ever watched closely the Lewis Klit fight? They both looked very amateurish throughout most of the fight, missing badly and stumbling around the ring. And since you mentioned Toney, how about Toney vs Rahman? At times Toney would miss and look like a weekend drunk going from bar to bar. However, he made it a competitive fight even though he’s a fat 37 yo MW, against a modern top 5 HW. In fact, Ali’s “rope a dope” made him look pretty bad as well, but most, including myself, consider him the greatest HW ever. But at times he certainly looked far from the greatest HW of all time.

I think “modern” fighters when presented with Langfords style and skills would be completely lost. Consider how much difficulty fighters have when they face someone with an “awkward” (i.e. unfamiliar) style. Winky vs that wild Ausie is a good example. Certainly Winky appears to possess vastly superior skills, but something in Soliman’s style certainly did cause him problems.

I understand your opinion, I just don’t agree with you.

[Cojimar 1945]

Harry Wills beat a number of quality fighters like McVey, Jeannette, Langford and Fulton. His resume is quite impressive.

[pundit]

I'll try to ignore your comment about the "compitition" in Lanford's era, as it was clearly nothing more than an amateurish attempt at humor from someone devoid of any knowledge of boxing history.

Ignore it if you like but its the truth. Have ever seen a fighter of Langfords era fight with the skill of either Toney or Jones? The fighters back then look amaturish by comparision on the films that exist. The quality of the films have nothing to do with it either. Watch the films on slow-mo to eliminate the herky jerky effect and concentrate on their technique. You'll see what I'm talking about.
The fact that a fighter as clumsy and unskilled as Ketchel could dominate his division with just ko power speaks volumes. I couldnt picture any fighter of that era landing more than a glancing blow on Roy Jones.

Especially Sam Langford does NOT look amateurish: he looks fast, elusive, agressive, powerful. As a consequence he could take on and beat much bigger men.

My view is that modern boxing technique essentially developed between 1880 and 1920. Already in the 1920s did styles resembled today's - Tunney, Wills, Greb, or Langford were up to modern standards. Since then the heavyweights have grown bigger; and for all fighters conditioning, nutrition, etc. have improved (while the average level of talent has deteriorated). But technique has not changed in a substantial way.

P

[Crease]

If Langford wasn't able to defeat Jone Jr. how can he hope to stand up to the opwer of Rocky?

[pundit]

My view should come as no surprise - (prime) Langford by wide decision or by TKO in the later rounds.