sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

[pound per pound]

I like Sam Langford the man, and admire him as a fighter, But he's in over his head here. Sam was down quit a bit in in his prime years, and quit more than once. He also lost on cuts.

And yes I've seen him on film four times on film.

Vitali Klitschko is a unique case as he:


1 ) Has the all time record of rounds one to rounds lost record using the scorecards, never being down on points or losing more than three round in his fights. No fighter yet alone all weight class lineal champions can not match this. They all lost more rounds. He's tough to out box.

2 ) Was never floored by a punch is his long career. Very few fighters can claim this. All weight classes included among champions. The list is short. Very short.

3 ) Won his title back and beat lot of of ring magazine ranked contenders in his last 30's to early 40's. Who else has done this?

4 ) Owns one of the best KO percentages of all time.

5 ) First time Hall of Fame induction and leader of the vote in his class.

All of the above is true. Impressive.

Yeah he lost to less on cuts in fight has was winning, but Lewis was an all time top ten heavyweight and Lewis refused the rematch. How would his career ranking play out if he never re-matched McCall or Rhaman? And then there is a fluke loss to Byrd based on an injury to a critical working part that requested surgery. Those are his two defeats. Fans call him a quitter ( he's non American or UK type so he gets extra hate ), well join the club of Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles...even Ali wanted to quit! Most fighters retire on their stool at some point without a serious injury ie. they gave up or didn't argue with their corner about quitting. That's the honest truth I just gave it.

Yes, I am a fan but, these are the facts. I just organized them here.

[pound per pound]

I like Sam Langford the man, and admire him as a fighter, But he's in over his head here. Sam was down quit a bit in in his prime years, and quit more than once. He also lost on cuts. Read the news articles, I have.

And yes I've seen him on film four times on film.

Vitali Klitschko is a unique case as he:


1 ) Has the all time record of rounds one to rounds lost record using the scorecards, never being down on points or losing more than three round in his fights. No fighter yet alone all weight class lineal champions can not match this. They all lost more rounds. He's tough to out box.

2 ) Was never floored by a punch is his long career. Very few fighters can claim this. All weight classes included among champions. The list is short. Very short. What a chin.

3 ) Won his title back and beat lot of of ring magazine ranked contenders in his late 30's to early 40's. Who else has done this? I count 8-9 ring magazine raked contenders.

4 ) Owns one of the best KO percentages of all time. HE was a heavy handed puncher and kept his power late in fights.

5 ) First time Hall of Fame induction and leader of the vote in his class. Very rare.

All of the above is true. Impressive. At best you came up with 3-4 heavyweights that fit two of the above accomplishments, I think. Help me out with those who qualify. If will be a short list, that's for certain.

Yeah he lost to less on cuts in fight has was winning, but Lewis was an all time top ten heavyweight and Lewis refused the rematch. How would his career ranking play out if he never re-matched McCall or Rhaman? And then there is a fluke loss to Byrd based on an injury to a critical working part that requested surgery. Those are his two defeats. Fans call him a quitter ( he's non American or UK type so he gets extra hate ), well join the club of Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles...even Ali wanted to quit! Most fighters retire on their stool at some point without a serious injury ie. they gave up or didn't argue with their corner about quitting. That's the honest truth I just gave up.

Yes, I am a fan but, these are the facts. I just organized them here. Think about them.

[Ambling Alp II]

I like Sam Langford the man, and admire him as a fighter, But he's in over his head here. Sam was down quit a bit in in his prime years, and quit more than once. He also lost on cuts.

And yes I've seen him on film four times on film.

Vitali Klitschko is a unique case as he:


1 ) Has the all time record of rounds one to rounds lost record using the scorecards, never being down on points or losing more than three round in his fights. No fighter yet alone all weight class lineal champions can not match this. They all lost more rounds. He's tough to out box.

2 ) Was never floored by a punch is his long career. Very few fighters can claim this. All weight classes included among champions. The list is short. Very short.

3 ) Won his title back and beat lot of of ring magazine ranked contenders in his last 30's to early 40's. Who else has done this?

4 ) Owns one of the best KO percentages of all time.

5 ) First time Hall of Fame induction and leader of the vote in his class.

All of the above is true. Impressive.

Yeah he lost to less on cuts in fight has was winning, but Lewis was an all time top ten heavyweight and Lewis refused the rematch. How would his career ranking play out if he never re-matched McCall or Rhaman? And then there is a fluke loss to Byrd based on an injury to a critical working part that requested surgery. Those are his two defeats. Fans call him a quitter ( he's non American or UK type so he gets extra hate ), well join the club of Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles...even Ali wanted to quit! Most fighters retire on their stool at some point without a serious injury ie. they gave up or didn't argue with their corner about quitting. That's the honest truth I just gave it.

Yes, I am a fan but, these are the facts. I just organized them here.

He is also 0-2 when he fought a decent fighter. Didn't go the distance either time.
Wasn't a fluke loss to Byrd. It was terrible fight and he looked bad. Why could he stop Byrd before he got injured.
That was one of lames quit jobs in the history of the sport. He had to stand up for three more rounds and he goes the distance.
Arguably the worst fighter in the Hall of Fame.

[Ambling Alp II]

That Langford was blind in one eye and had well over 250 fights is something that are holding against him? Wow.

Boxing was in many ways corrupt back then? Like it's much better not now?
What does it matter if one state commission says a guy can't fight because of a medical condition? He can fight someone else.
If you are worried about record keeping, you can always go go the Boxrec Database. Sure there are occasionally fights missing, but pretty sure you can an idea.
Of course there were guys who weren't very good. That had always been the case and always will be. There has to tomato cans to be spoofed to puff up people's records.

Almost anyone in their 20s can get a boxing license. That's the way it has been.

Look at heavyweight boxing in recent times. A prospect spends his first three-four years against complete stiffs that he can't possibly lose to. No fights against tough veterans or other prospects. Got have that pretty record
He is now 15-0 or 20-0 or whatever. How much has he really learned?
Then he goes for a WBS title against a title holder that did the same thing. How often does he fight after that?

Fighters reach their potential when they fight several fights against tough opponents. When that are challenged both coming up and after they have been fighting for a while.

Sam Lanford had more fights against Hall of Famers than some top recent heavyweights have fights.

Yes because it just begs the question why was someone half blind and still boxing after decades still able to have success? That says more about the level of opposition to me. Boxing is the hardest sport in the world, most top fighters in recent times are pretty much done after 30-50 fights. Or once they hit their mid 30s. Their bodies start breaking down or they start to decline. There are exceptions of course but boxing on the whole is a young mans sport. I just don't believe a lot of these old timers who had hundreds of fights were in as great physical or mental condition as many would like to believe. Especially when that era living and health conditions were pretty bad to start with.

I meant record keeping in those times wasn’t a thing, it was easier to lie about your record. There was no internet, video etc to check. Guys could pretty much claim what they liked. Boxing still is the most corrupt sport in the world but again I think it was a lot more common back then because people were more desperate for money and there were a lot more people boxing than there are today.



.

Guys are done after 30-50 fights because they are already old because most fight so rarely; the best are tested very rarely. How often do two top 10 guys fight each without a title at stake? Not nearly as much as they used to. They avoid each like the plague and bide their time until they get a shot at one of the four titles.

You are now questioning their mental condition?
Yes, life was a lot tougher back then. This helped make people tougher.

So it actually counts against Langford that he fought with a bad eye. Wow. Well, it's more impressive than a guy who quits rather than tough it out for three rounds against a pillow puncher.
Could it be that Langford just that great? Cuz he was.
And no he wasn't as successful later in his career.

[pound per pound]

I like Sam Langford the man, and admire him as a fighter, But he's in over his head here. Sam was down quit a bit in in his prime years, and quit more than once. He also lost on cuts.

And yes I've seen him on film four times on film.

Vitali Klitschko is a unique case as he:


1 ) Has the all time record of rounds one to rounds lost record using the scorecards, never being down on points or losing more than three round in his fights. No fighter yet alone all weight class lineal champions can not match this. They all lost more rounds. He's tough to out box.

2 ) Was never floored by a punch is his long career. Very few fighters can claim this. All weight classes included among champions. The list is short. Very short.

3 ) Won his title back and beat lot of of ring magazine ranked contenders in his last 30's to early 40's. Who else has done this?

4 ) Owns one of the best KO percentages of all time.

5 ) First time Hall of Fame induction and leader of the vote in his class.

All of the above is true. Impressive.

Yeah he lost to less on cuts in fight has was winning, but Lewis was an all time top ten heavyweight and Lewis refused the rematch. How would his career ranking play out if he never re-matched McCall or Rhaman? And then there is a fluke loss to Byrd based on an injury to a critical working part that requested surgery. Those are his two defeats. Fans call him a quitter ( he's non American or UK type so he gets extra hate ), well join the club of Duran, Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Johnson, Ezzard Charles...even Ali wanted to quit! Most fighters retire on their stool at some point without a serious injury ie. they gave up or didn't argue with their corner about quitting. That's the honest truth I just gave it.

Yes, I am a fan but, these are the facts. I just organized them here.

He is also 0-2 when he fought a decent fighter. Didn't go the distance either time.
Wasn't a fluke loss to Byrd. It was terrible fight and he looked bad. Why could he stop Byrd before he got injured.
That was one of lames quit jobs in the history of the sport. He had to stand up for three more rounds and he goes the distance.
Arguably the worst fighter in the Hall of Fame.

As suspected you ignore my points and don't answer how many fighters qualify on points 1-5. Names please. Asking you.

Sure he lost to Lewis and it's how he lost mind you not by Ko ,or on points but with a cut. He was in the lead and didn't get the re-match Lewis said he give would give. The cut wasn't bleeding badly when it was stopped by the doctor via injury. His other loss to Byrd was via torn shoulder is fluke. Check the score cards, he was well ahead on points. He's human these thing can happen. Those are his lone defeats and under circumstances he only quit once. I listed examples of other fighters including Sam Langford. Want more names than I listed? Heavyweights. Okay Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield. And Liston, Jack Johnson, and Harry Wills. All quit. heck-- joe Frazier was a corner retirement he tell Futch get out of my way and Rocky Marciano lost an amateur fight by being baldy outclassed and fouling out. Rocky. Let met know if you want more names of guys who quit. How about the best all time, arguably Super Ray Robinson quit! And Ali wanted to quit expect Dundee didn't let him. How history would have changed.

As I mentioned Vitail got the most votes HOF in his class and was a rare first time inductee. Few heavyweight did that. Few fighters period. Thats very strong and it was a solid HOF class that year. I disagree with opinion that these were the only decent fights he meet. Corrie Sanders, Sam Peter , and Thomas were all rated in Ring Magazine top 3 contenders. I'll take their opinion over yours who is good. Like I said he fought 8-9 ring magazine hall of fame contenders, more than most in the heavyweight division the were admitted to the hall off fame. .

Vitali is arguably the worst in the hall of fame, are you kidding or are you that type of hater?

[Controversial]

Guys are done after 30-50 fights because they are already old because most fight so rarely

You are missing my point. Boxing is very hard on the body and too many blows to the head are bad, we all know this. Brain damage from boxing wasn't even known about in that era. The guys then were just as susceptible from injury and brain damage as people are today, probably more so as they fought with smaller gloves for multiple rounds and fought far more regular. Langford was blind in one eye which is quite a major injury. No one can have hundreds of fights and be as fresh as a daisy. But often guys in those eras did have multiple fights, sometimes on the same day, or several a week. No way is that not affecting them. So having hundreds of fights may look good on paper but I doubt very much these guys were at their physical or mental peak.

So how fit do you think guys like Langford were in reality? If you take it from when Langford won the coloured HW title in 1909 Langford had already had 88 fights (excluding newspaper decisions). A very extensive career already against some very tough men at much lighter weights. How was someone able to give away huge amounts in size and weight and still beat or be competitive with the best HWs of the day? Do you think he fought so much that his body became impervious to injury and the effects of being punched in the head because I don't. The top boxers today are so much more switched on, lots restrict head punching in sparring, lots follow very regimented diets and do lots of things to help their bodies recover but no one could do what these guys done because their bodies understandably break down.

So how come guys today can't do it but they could back then? The only conclusion I come to is these old timers having hundreds of fights were more likely to be pretty broken physically, so what does that say about the guys they beat? Plus this was in an era where life expectancy was poor as were most others things like medical science.

[Tony1244]

Mythical fight or did it really happen?

[pound per pound]

Well, Vitali had 210 amateur boxing fights 190-15, and 35 ( 34-1 ) pro kick boxing boxing matches, all vs men at heavyweight. He was the six time kickboxing champion. And 47 pro fights. That's a lot of fights. No one active today has had more. Consider that in his total. In fact few men had more recored combat matches which included Pro boxing + Amateur boxing + Pro Kick Boxing...even the old timers.

He fought more than most old timers and did it successfully this he was 40! He must have had an iron chin, and I think an under rated defense that fans don't get. His style was hard to hit, and you'll never find him hit with combos because he moves back quickly and moves his head and get his arms in way. A master of distance judgement he used his height and reach to maximum effect. He even had Lennox Lewis missing badly and a nice counter punch. Things like this and his punch activity, and power made him extremely tough to beat on points. He was never out jabbed. The punch stats in all pro fights were lopsided in his favor.

He was 15-2 in world title fights (12 ko's ) and 7-2 ( 6 ko's ) vs former, current and future world titlists. Very few men in history can mach this in boxing, that's why he was a 1st time hall of fame guy on the ballot. I'm not wrong, these are facts.

[Seamus]

Excellent points PFP. When I first came on the forum the contempt for the K brothers was beyond belief. They were both bums who never beat a worthy opponent, almost anyone from the past would beat them, Jess Willard was better. You'd have to be insane to vote them into the IBHOF, etc, etc. Some of those guys, I notice, no longer post here by the way.

[margaret thatcher]

langford having the height advantage over the klits is an absolute classic, what are some of these guys thinking

[Ambling Alp II]

Win/loss records and title defense don't mean anything if the competition is not good. In boxing you can always find an opponent that doesn't test you. If that is your go to then you don't have much.
We can name tons of fighters with pretty win/loss record who couldn't really fight.

He had two serious tests and was 0-2. Couldn't even go the distance either time.

Notice that you don't mention opponents that he beat. When a guy is great, people do that.
His chin was texted for 6 rounds against Lennox Lewis and that's about it.
He couldn't move well. Slow hand speed. Notice rarely does anyone say he had a great uppercut, lefthook, overhand right, etc.
Occasionally he gets the obligatory "good jab" compliments that all tall fighters get; but even that is rare.

[pound per pound]

Excellent points PFP. When I first came on the forum the contempt for the K brothers was beyond belief. They were both bums who never beat a worthy opponent, almost anyone from the past would beat them, Jess Willard was better. You'd have to be insane to vote them into the IBHOF, etc, etc. Some of those guys, I notice, no longer post here by the way.

Some cling to fighter like Willard and Simon in an effort to boost two popular fighters in Dempsey and Louis beating 240+ pound heavyweights. Yeah they were bad and the Willard Dempsey fought was a slow walking, old punching punching bag and Simon was much more than that. They would be owned today. Terrible defense and not much in terms of offense. Sorry fans, that's the truth.

[Ambling Alp II]

Excellent points PFP. When I first came on the forum the contempt for the K brothers was beyond belief. They were both bums who never beat a worthy opponent, almost anyone from the past would beat them, Jess Willard was better. You'd have to be insane to vote them into the IBHOF, etc, etc. Some of those guys, I notice, no longer post here by the way.

Yes we lost a lot of the good posters. Great John L. ,Dempseyfire., aad off the Deck, etc. People that knew the sport. didn't care how a big guy was, didn't prop a guy because he was white. Talked about stuff like speed, power, ability, the guys left hook, jab etc. Didn't care about weight and deceiving win/loss records. We didn't always agree, but we actually gave things some thought and didn't come on Boxing History just to crap on guys who came before their time.

[margaret thatcher]

no, you came on to crap about anyone current, even though many of you admit to barely following the current scene

[Ambling Alp II]

Excellent points PFP. When I first came on the forum the contempt for the K brothers was beyond belief. They were both bums who never beat a worthy opponent, almost anyone from the past would beat them, Jess Willard was better. You'd have to be insane to vote them into the IBHOF, etc, etc. Some of those guys, I notice, no longer post here by the way.

Some cling to fighter like Willard and Simon in an effort to boost two popular fighters in Dempsey and Louis beating 240+ pound heavyweights. Yeah they were bad and the Willard Dempsey fought was a slow walking, old punching punching bag and Simon was much more than that. They would be owned today. Terrible defense and not much in terms of offense. Sorry fans, that's the truth.

Yep. Things magically got way better the day you became a fan. What a coincidence.

[pound per pound]

Win/loss records and title defense don't mean anything if the competition is not good. In boxing you can always find an opponent that doesn't test you. If that is your go to then you don't have much.
We can name tons of fighters with pretty win/loss record who couldn't really fight.

He had two serious tests and was 0-2. Couldn't even go the distance either time.

Notice that you don't mention opponents that he beat. When a guy is great, people do that.
His chin was texted for 6 rounds against Lennox Lewis and that's about it.
He couldn't move well. Slow hand speed. Notice rarely does anyone say he had a great uppercut, lefthook, overhand right, etc.
Occasionally he gets the obligatory "good jab" compliments that all tall fighters get; but even that is rare.

Your wrong. His chin was tested by being hit from punchers in Lewis, Sanders, Hyde, and others. He is one of two heavyweight champions never to go down. He is also one of the best punchers and he did move well for his size, he wasn't graceful though. The point is he used towering height, good punch anticipation, and moved around the ring when he wanted to move well and combined that with good head movement. Check the punch stats in any of his fights, you will see what I'm talking about.

Name a fighter who was that active in boxing both amateur and pro and kickboxing? You can't and I give your the history of the sport. Maybe you'll come up 1 or 2 but my point which you can't stand to admit is true. Try to quote me in full context.

[Seamus]

You're right Alp, those guys didn't discriminate. Didn't matter whether the Klitschko's beat a white guy or a black guy. He was automatically a bum.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wladimir had a lot of power and some boxing skills. He also had a weak chin and questionable stamina. No other heavyweight who had two glaring weaknesses like this is consider great.

They saw Wladimir get embarrassed by three different ordinary heavyweights. Lennox Lewis got ragged on by some people for it happening twice, by better fighters by the way)
No other heavyweight has this happen to him (at least in fights close his prime) and be considered great.
All the subsequent wins over stiffs doesn't erase this. At least he beat Chris Byrd.

Can't even say that about Vitaly. We saw Vitaly quit like a dog against Chris Byrd,. Couldn't tough it out for three frikkin rounds against a guy who had almost no power. A lot of people that followed boxing for a long time were disgusted by this.

Then against a declining Lennox Lewis, he gets stopped in six rounds. Didn't have the defense to last or the offense to put a vulnerable Lewis away. All we get is excuses. 0-2 in fights that mattered; couldn't go the distance in either.

[Ambling Alp II]

Win/loss records and title defense don't mean anything if the competition is not good. In boxing you can always find an opponent that doesn't test you. If that is your go to then you don't have much.
We can name tons of fighters with pretty win/loss record who couldn't really fight.

He had two serious tests and was 0-2. Couldn't even go the distance either time.

Notice that you don't mention opponents that he beat. When a guy is great, people do that.
His chin was texted for 6 rounds against Lennox Lewis and that's about it.
He couldn't move well. Slow hand speed. Notice rarely does anyone say he had a great uppercut, lefthook, overhand right, etc.
Occasionally he gets the obligatory "good jab" compliments that all tall fighters get; but even that is rare.

Your wrong. His chin was tested by being hit from punchers in Lewis, Sanders, Hyde, and others. He is one of two heavyweight champions never to go down. He is also one of the best punchers and he did move well for his size, he wasn't graceful though. The point is he used towering height, good punch anticipation, and moved around the ring when he wanted to move well and combined that with good head movement. Check the punch stats in any of his fights, you will see what I'm talking about.

Name a fighter who was that active in boxing both amateur and pro and kickboxing? You can't and I give your the history of the sport. Maybe you'll come up 1 or 2 but my point which you can't stand to admit is true. Try to quote me in full context.

Lewis, Sanders and Hide?
He was hurt by Lewis, who was clearly past it.
Sanders? Was considered a stiff until he knocked out glass jaw Wladimir.
Herbie Hide? Are kidding? In a fight that didn't even go two rounds. How desperate can you get?
Moved well for a big man. Well he didn't. Besides it doesn't matter if he moved well for a big man. It matters if he moved well.
Could not care less about kickboxing. Completely irrelevant.

0-2 in fights that mattered. 0-2 in fights that mattered. 0-2 in fights that mattered.

[Controversial]

Guys are done after 30-50 fights because they are already old because most fight so rarely

You are missing my point. Boxing is very hard on the body and too many blows to the head are bad, we all know this. Brain damage from boxing wasn't even known about in that era. The guys then were just as susceptible from injury and brain damage as people are today, probably more so as they fought with smaller gloves for multiple rounds and fought far more regular. Langford was blind in one eye which is quite a major injury. No one can have hundreds of fights and be as fresh as a daisy. But often guys in those eras did have multiple fights, sometimes on the same day, or several a week. No way is that not affecting them. So having hundreds of fights may look good on paper but I doubt very much these guys were at their physical or mental peak.

So how physically and mentally fit do you think guys like Langford were in reality? If you take it from when Langford won the coloured HW title in 1909 Langford had already had 88 fights (excluding newspaper decisions). A very extensive career already against some very tough men at much lighter weights. Most of the top HWs in history retire with way less fights and they are often on the slide when they do. How was someone able to give away huge amounts in size and weight and still beat or be competitive with the best HWs of the day after such a long and tough career already ? Do you think he fought so much that his body became impervious to injury and the effects of being punched in the head because I don't. The top boxers today are so much more switched on, lots restrict head punching in sparring, lots follow very regimented diets and do lots of things to help their bodies recover but no one today could do what these guys done a century ago because their bodies understandably break down. Plus today most are full time professionals dedicating themselves to training, guys back in those days often had day jobs.

So how come guys today can't do it but they could back then? The only conclusion I come to is these old timers having hundreds of fights were more likely to be pretty broken physically, so what does that say about the guys they beat? Plus this was in an era where life expectancy was poor as were most others things like medical science.

[pound per pound]

Win/loss records and title defense don't mean anything if the competition is not good. In boxing you can always find an opponent that doesn't test you. If that is your go to then you don't have much.
We can name tons of fighters with pretty win/loss record who couldn't really fight.

He had two serious tests and was 0-2. Couldn't even go the distance either time.

Notice that you don't mention opponents that he beat. When a guy is great, people do that.
His chin was texted for 6 rounds against Lennox Lewis and that's about it.
He couldn't move well. Slow hand speed. Notice rarely does anyone say he had a great uppercut, lefthook, overhand right, etc.
Occasionally he gets the obligatory "good jab" compliments that all tall fighters get; but even that is rare.

Your wrong. His chin was tested by being hit from punchers in Lewis, Sanders, Hyde, and others. He is one of two heavyweight champions never to go down. He is also one of the best punchers and he did move well for his size, he wasn't graceful though. The point is he used towering height, good punch anticipation, and moved around the ring when he wanted to move well and combined that with good head movement. Check the punch stats in any of his fights, you will see what I'm talking about.

Name a fighter who was that active in boxing both amateur and pro and kickboxing? You can't and I give your the history of the sport. Maybe you'll come up 1 or 2 but my point which you can't stand to admit is true. Try to quote me in full context.

Lewis, Sanders and Hide?
He was hurt by Lewis, who was clearly past it.
Sanders? Was considered a stiff until he knocked out glass jaw Wladimir.
Herbie Hide? Are kidding? In a fight that didn't even go two rounds. How desperate can you get?
Moved well for a big man. Well he didn't. Besides it doesn't matter if he moved well for a big man. It matters if he moved well.
Could not care less about kickboxing. Completely irrelevant.

0-2 in fights that mattered. 0-2 in fights that mattered. 0-2 in fights that mattered.

Yes the were punchers. So was Briggs, Williams and company. You're not even austere enough to be good hater of fighters. He moved around the ring well period. Who are to say the Byrd match mattered more than the others? And no one is saying Lewis was done when he ko'd Rahman less than two years before? Everyone looses I could too any fighter including Ali and Louis there lost more and gift decisions where they should have lost. Vital at least has reasons why he lost to Byrd. Try me sometime, you're a joke who doesn't compare athletes fairly with age/accomplishments/quality of opposition/circumstances. And you fail to realize that super size when combined with ability matters.

We look forward to others examples of you have, and you still won't reply to my points directly in context because they are true.

-P4P

[Ambling Alp II]

Briggs and Williams. Now that is desperation.
Briggs has the one stoppage of an ancient Mercer. Nothing else worth mentioning. Didn't have the best chin himself, but Klitschko could not stop a past version of Briggs.
Danny Williams? Well he stopped a shot Mike Tyson. And nothing else. What an achievement that Klitschko wasn't stopped by either of these guys.

Vitaly Klitschko moved well. Period. Wow. Just when you think you have heard it all. A regular prime Ali wasn't he.

Louis and Ali (and almost anyone else) would never have quit against Byrd. Three frikkin rounds. Three frikkin rounds.

Super size? Well his his super size was enough to beat the much smaller Chris Byrd.

Respond to your points? What points? Kick boxing?

[Ambling Alp II]

Guys are done after 30-50 fights because they are already old because most fight so rarely

You are missing my point. Boxing is very hard on the body and too many blows to the head are bad, we all know this. Brain damage from boxing wasn't even known about in that era. The guys then were just as susceptible from injury and brain damage as people are today, probably more so as they fought with smaller gloves for multiple rounds and fought far more regular. Langford was blind in one eye which is quite a major injury. No one can have hundreds of fights and be as fresh as a daisy. But often guys in those eras did have multiple fights, sometimes on the same day, or several a week. No way is that not affecting them. So having hundreds of fights may look good on paper but I doubt very much these guys were at their physical or mental peak.

So how physically and mentally fit do you think guys like Langford were in reality? If you take it from when Langford won the coloured HW title in 1909 Langford had already had 88 fights (excluding newspaper decisions). A very extensive career already against some very tough men at much lighter weights. Most of the top HWs in history retire with way less fights and they are often on the slide when they do. How was someone able to give away huge amounts in size and weight and still beat or be competitive with the best HWs of the day after such a long and tough career already ? Do you think he fought so much that his body became impervious to injury and the effects of being punched in the head because I don't. The top boxers today are so much more switched on, lots restrict head punching in sparring, lots follow very regimented diets and do lots of things to help their bodies recover but no one today could do what these guys done a century ago because their bodies understandably break down. Plus today most are full time professionals dedicating themselves to training, guys back in those days often had day jobs.

So how come guys today can't do it but they could back then? The only conclusion I come to is these old timers having hundreds of fights were more likely to be pretty broken physically, so what does that say about the guys they beat? Plus this was in an era where life expectancy was poor as were most others things like medical science.

1. I think Langford was extremely physically and mentally fit until the end of his career. Absurd to think otherwise.
You are criticizing guys for fighting more. That is again, absurd.
Fighters fight for money. There was no Pay Per View then. No TV. Only the really big name (mostly white) fighters got money money from film rights. Langford and others little choice.

Look at how many fights James Jeffries had. Corbett didn't have many. Willard didn't. Others did.
Todays fighters are so much more switched on? Umm, ok.
Yes some fighters had day jobs. Not once a guy became a contender though. A lot these guys were constantly fighting and training. Do you really believe Fury is training every day? Or even Wilder, Joshua and Usyk. They aren't.

If they fought in an earlier time, they probably would have ad more fights. Langford would have had less.

Heavyweights don't reach their potential. They aren't tested early in their careers, which helps learn and makes you tougher. They are often rusty because they fight so rarely.

[Controversial]

Guys are done after 30-50 fights because they are already old because most fight so rarely

You are missing my point. Boxing is very hard on the body and too many blows to the head are bad, we all know this. Brain damage from boxing wasn't even known about in that era. The guys then were just as susceptible from injury and brain damage as people are today, probably more so as they fought with smaller gloves for multiple rounds and fought far more regular. Langford was blind in one eye which is quite a major injury. No one can have hundreds of fights and be as fresh as a daisy. But often guys in those eras did have multiple fights, sometimes on the same day, or several a week. No way is that not affecting them. So having hundreds of fights may look good on paper but I doubt very much these guys were at their physical or mental peak.

So how physically and mentally fit do you think guys like Langford were in reality? If you take it from when Langford won the coloured HW title in 1909 Langford had already had 88 fights (excluding newspaper decisions). A very extensive career already against some very tough men at much lighter weights. Most of the top HWs in history retire with way less fights and they are often on the slide when they do. How was someone able to give away huge amounts in size and weight and still beat or be competitive with the best HWs of the day after such a long and tough career already ? Do you think he fought so much that his body became impervious to injury and the effects of being punched in the head because I don't. The top boxers today are so much more switched on, lots restrict head punching in sparring, lots follow very regimented diets and do lots of things to help their bodies recover but no one today could do what these guys done a century ago because their bodies understandably break down. Plus today most are full time professionals dedicating themselves to training, guys back in those days often had day jobs.

So how come guys today can't do it but they could back then? The only conclusion I come to is these old timers having hundreds of fights were more likely to be pretty broken physically, so what does that say about the guys they beat? Plus this was in an era where life expectancy was poor as were most others things like medical science.

1. I think Langford was extremely physically and mentally fit until the end of his career. Absurd to think otherwise.
You are criticizing guys for fighting more. That is again, absurd.
Fighters fight for money. There was no Pay Per View then. No TV. Only the really big name (mostly white) fighters got money money from film rights. Langford and others little choice.

Look at how many fights James Jeffries had. Corbett didn't have many. Willard didn't. Others did.
Todays fighters are so much more switched on? Umm, ok.
Yes some fighters had day jobs. Not once a guy became a contender though. A lot these guys were constantly fighting and training. Do you really believe Fury is training every day? Or even Wilder, Joshua and Usyk. They aren't.

If they fought in an earlier time, they probably would have ad more fights. Langford would have had less.

Heavyweights don't reach their potential. They aren't tested early in their careers, which helps learn and makes you tougher. They are often rusty because they fight so rarely.

I'm not criticizing them, I'm questioning how someone can have almost 100 fights and then compete at HW with the best around all while giving away a lot in size and weight. I listed before many of the greatest HWs in history, most had between 30-50 fights. So Ali, Louis, Liston, Norton, Marciano, Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson, Holmes etc didn't reach their potential because they didn't have 300 fights? Come on, think about more intelligently without having this misty eyed dream that fighters from 100+ years ago were made out of steel and were fitter and stronger than even fighters from the 60/70s were. Having loads of fights doesn't make you better, if anything it has a negative effect on your body. Fighters reach a certain level, some a lot quicker than others, they don't continuously improve. If most of the top guys in history are done at a world level after 30-50 fights or in their mid 30s then why are fighters from 100+ years ago only getting better and better, it makes no sense.

[Ambling Alp II]

The guys though mentioned (Ali etc.) did reach their potential. They all had fights against tough veterans and other prospects on their way up. Then as contenders they fought other contenders. As champions they made serious title defenses. For the most part, they fought the best of their eras. Wasn't talking about them.

In the last 20 years or so , (heavyweights in particular) a prospect doesn't fight anyone but stiffs for at least their first three years. Then they get a WBS title shot against another guy who did the same thing. Hard to know how good either is. They didn't have to reach down deep. Didn't have to come up with a Plan B during a fight. Didn't have to fight a decent opponent who stylistically might be trouble. They were never tested. The top 10 usually consists of mostly guys guys with pretty records who have rarely fought anyone else. No these guys don't reach their potential. Maybe they wind with pretty record and a lot of meaningless title defenses. Doesn't mean they were actually really good.
Look at Joshua. Never fought Fury. Never fought Wilder. Had fight after fight (and WBS title defense after WBS title defense) against guys in their late 30s. That kind of thing has been happening for 20 years or so.

As for Langford, obviously at a certain point he got a lot of wear and tear. However, he was one of the very best fighters whoever lived. He was phenomenal. Top 10 All time pound for pound without question. He was still able to fight at a high level after a lot of fights because 90% of his best was still better than almost anyone else. When he regressed further, he started to lose more often. And his record reflects that.