sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

[Controversial]

Yes most heavyweights are done by 55 fights. Langford wasn't most heavyweights.

His last big win was in 1917. He had about 185 fights by then. Some of his fights were against great fighters or at least very good fighters. Many were against stiffs in non competitive fights that didn't take anything out of him.

Again, it's a mistake to assume that since Langford had a lot of fights, that the guys he beat couldn't have been very good.
And if they were very good, then Langford wasn't that good.
Was Harry Wills was a great fighter? Of course. He was tall, could box and could move. Are you going to pretend that Langford didn't beat him?

Ray Robinson beat great middleweights when he was still a welterweight, weighing in the mid-140s. Not that surprising that Langford could beat great heavyweights when he weighed in the 180s and 190s.
Yes Robinson fought one light heavy and lost. And you are leaving out that it was against a Hall of Famer light heavyweight. Or that Robinson was well a head in the fight. He certainly could have defeated light heavyweights.

"The more serious the sport was taken the harder it got and from the 60s onwards HWs started to get bigger and more skilled."
It got harder in the 1960s? That is just total crap. It didn't get harder in the 1960s. Boxing has never been as easy sport. It has never been easier than now.

The heavyweights got bigger and more skilled? Yes Liston and Ali was bigger than most heavyweights before them. But there were bigger heavyweights before them. There several other top heavyweights in the 1960s and 1970s that were smaller.

So why do you think guys from those times were able to have hundreds of fights and beat much bigger guys when fighters are past it far quicker in modern times and unable to give away similar size and weight discrepancies?

Your answer, that 'boxing must be harder now' is so embarrassingly facile and simplistic I'm surprised you're sticking to your guns with this one.

It’s been taken out of context. I was referencing the fighters who fought hundreds of fights. I said boxers would often fought at the last minute when they were unprepared, injured or they would fight much bigger guys to make money. From the 60s onwards there was a drop in how many of the best guys fought all the time, in that sense it became harder as guys wouldn’t be so battle worn. No one can still answer how guys could have hundreds of fights and still be considered the best in the world yet from the 60s onwards most fighters are finished way sooner. When do we ever see a top class fighter in recent times have more than 80 fights let alone 300. But it has got easier apparently. And I'm not talking about fighters dodging anyone good, Tyson, Ali, Liston, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier etc were all past it after 35-55 fights.

[Ambling Alp II]

Didn't seem to be taking it out of context, but any.

Obviously age is a major part of the equation. You are completely leaving this out. At a certain age, (usually around 30 or so but of course can vary) fighters start to gradually decline. You might not see it when a guy goes from 30 to 31. But almost every fighter is clearly not as good at 35 as when they are 30.
Obviously there are rare exceptions. But that is the rule of thumb.

If Langford fought in the 1960s or later, he would have had many less fights. When he fought, he couldn't get a title shot or a fight for big $. That wouldn't have happened had he fought later on.

He would not have have taken fights at short notice. Wouldn't have fought Wills, Jeannette, and McVey more than 3x.
You have to get past your obsession with how many fights a guy had and coming to the conclusion that his era must have sucked. Langford was one of the top 5 or 6 fighters who ever lived. In his late 20s, he may have only been 90% of what he once was, which was still good enough to beat almost anyone.

How old was Langford when he had his last major wins? 31. He was losing more often. He was no longer one of the best in the world.

[margaret thatcher]

langford was in his heavyweight prime as a 150 pound 19 year old

[Controversial]

Didn't seem to be taking it out of context, but any.

Obviously age is a major part of the equation. You are completely leaving this out. At a certain age, (usually around 30 or so but of course can vary) fighters start to gradually decline. You might not see it when a guy goes from 30 to 31. But almost every fighter is clearly not as good at 35 as when they are 30.
Obviously there are rare exceptions. But that is the rule of thumb.

If Langford fought in the 1960s or later, he would have had many less fights. When he fought, he couldn't get a title shot or a fight for big $. That wouldn't have happened had he fought later on.

He would not have have taken fights at short notice. Wouldn't have fought Wills, Jeannette, and McVey more than 3x.
You have to get past your obsession with how many fights a guy had and coming to the conclusion that his era must have sucked. Langford was one of the top 5 or 6 fighters who ever lived. In his late 20s, he may have only been 90% of what he once was, which was still good enough to beat almost anyone.

How old was Langford when he had his last major wins? 31. He was losing more often. He was no longer one of the best in the world.

I never said it sucked, it was different times. It's this reason comparing eras is futile. Of course age is relevant too but miles on the clock ages people just as much especially at HW. Langford went the 15 round distance 27 times, the 12 round distance 33 times and the 10 round distance 59 times.

And I mentioned age in other posts

Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s.

[Ambling Alp II]

Most fighters start sliding before their mid-30s. The guys that you mentioned earlier (Tyson, Ali, Liston, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier ) all were clearly past their best by their mid-30s.
Well you, myself and others are comparing eras. We do it all the time. Yes we actually can compare different eras if we do it in a smart way.
You didn't actually use the word "sucked" but you might as well have. Saying that an era must not have been good (to paraphrase you) if one guy had a lot of fights and was still one of the best is not a good way. And of course we you say his era was not good it indirectly makes Langford not look as good.

Yes he had a mileage on him. To some degree it hastened his decline. However, he was so good that he could still beat great fighters even when he was slightly past his best.
It happened. Maybe it sounds strange to you. But it happened. We shouldn't give a guy credit for the sheer amount of fights or wins or KOs, or title defense. Statistics in boxing are very often misleading.
However we should credit to a guy for beating a great fighter. Langford did that often.

Sometimes there is a guy who doesn't fit the cookie cutter image we have a of a fighter. Maybe he is small. Maybe he has a weird style; whatever it might be. If a guy showed that could do it, he could do it. Langford showed that he could do it.

[Controversial]

Most fighters start sliding before their mid-30s. The guys that you mentioned earlier (Tyson, Ali, Liston, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier ) all were clearly past their best by their mid-30s.
Well you, myself and others are comparing eras. We do it all the time. Yes we actually can compare different eras if we do it in a smart way.
You didn't actually use the word "sucked" but you might as well have. Saying that an era must not have been good (to paraphrase you) if one guy had a lot of fights and was still one of the best is not a good way. And of course we you say his era was not good it indirectly makes Langford not look as good.

Yes he had a mileage on him. To some degree it hastened his decline. However, he was so good that he could still beat great fighters even when he was slightly past his best.
It happened. Maybe it sounds strange to you. But it happened. We shouldn't give a guy credit for the sheer amount of fights or wins or KOs, or title defense. Statistics in boxing are very often misleading.
However we should credit to a guy for beating a great fighter. Langford did that often.

Sometimes there is a guy who doesn't fit the cookie cutter image we have a of a fighter. Maybe he is small. Maybe he has a weird style; whatever it might be. If a guy showed that could do it, he could do it. Langford showed that he could do it.

I said he was a great fighter. For his era. Boxing was different in those times for lots of reasons but just because he could do what he done then doesn't mean he could do the same a century later to a world class HW. They were often working day jobs and fighting at short notice, little in the way of health checks, nothing stopping opponents fighting under false names, injured, fighting soon after knockout defeats, crossing state lines and fighting elsewhere etc. In those aspects the sport wasn't professional, corruption was rife as many were desperate for money in those times. In 1944 Cocoa Kid was discharged from the navy as he was diagnosed with pugilistic dementia. He carried on boxing for four years. I just think many in that era were pretty damaged to be fighting that regular. Read through some of Langfords fights, a few comments like "faked fight", "bout stopped by police to allow opponent to recover", newspaper weights different to the official weights, opponent replaced at the last minute, neither man willing to fight etc.. Things like that were not uncommon in those times. Langford was thought to be going blind after the Fulton fight in 1917. Five years later in 1922 aged 36 Langford knocked out future world MW champ and IBHOF member Tiger Flowers in 2 rounds. At this point Langford was pretty much blind, way past his best and had close to 300 fights. Can you see something like that happening today because I can't, the sport was just different. He was great in his era I'm not disputing that but you just don't get anyone having these sorts of careers anymore. It’s not like there hasn’t been great HWs since but as we've said by around 35-55 fights they are past it.

[Ezzard]

PEDs now rampant in all sports allow sportsmen to train harder and longer than in the past. This will cause them to burn out quicker too. The main difference between the old fighters and contemporary ones is the weight cutting. This is now a big deal in the sport. Boxers today can be two divisions lower than they would have been 100 years ago. This dramatically shortens a boxer's career too. They can literally get old over night.

This weight cutting obviously doesn't apply to HWs.

Fights do get stopped earlier these days but the very top fighters rarely get stopped anyway so it's negligible.

[Controversial]

PEDs now rampant in all sports allow sportsmen to train harder and longer than in the past. This will cause them to burn out quicker too. The main difference between the old fighters and contemporary ones is the weight cutting. This is now a big deal in the sport. Boxers today can be two divisions lower than they would have been 100 years ago. This dramatically shortens a boxer's career too. They can literally get old over night.

This weight cutting obviously doesn't apply to HWs.

Fights do get stopped earlier these days but the very top fighters rarely get stopped anyway so it's negligible.

I agree weight cutting is very dangerous, I can never understand why guys practically starve themselves and end up as weak as a lamb to make weight. Eating, training properly and making weight without major issues must be the way to go. Its interesting listening to podcasts from fighters talking about this and the things they put themselves through, sitting in hot baths for hours, drinking their own urine, running miles in sweatsuits the morning of fights, not eating for days etc... it's crazy what some do.

[Ezzard]

PEDs now rampant in all sports allow sportsmen to train harder and longer than in the past. This will cause them to burn out quicker too. The main difference between the old fighters and contemporary ones is the weight cutting. This is now a big deal in the sport. Boxers today can be two divisions lower than they would have been 100 years ago. This dramatically shortens a boxer's career too. They can literally get old over night.

This weight cutting obviously doesn't apply to HWs.

Fights do get stopped earlier these days but the very top fighters rarely get stopped anyway so it's negligible.

I agree weight cutting is very dangerous, I can never understand why guys practically starve themselves and end up as weak as a lamb to make weight. Eating, training properly and making weight without major issues must be the way to go.

It's such an advantage for them to be bigger. They know what they're doing. But now and then they get it wrong and are either dead at the weight, fade badly in the second half of a fight or suffer a severe injury. Younger fighters seem to find it easier than older ones too.

[Controversial]

PEDs now rampant in all sports allow sportsmen to train harder and longer than in the past. This will cause them to burn out quicker too. The main difference between the old fighters and contemporary ones is the weight cutting. This is now a big deal in the sport. Boxers today can be two divisions lower than they would have been 100 years ago. This dramatically shortens a boxer's career too. They can literally get old over night.

This weight cutting obviously doesn't apply to HWs.

Fights do get stopped earlier these days but the very top fighters rarely get stopped anyway so it's negligible.

I agree weight cutting is very dangerous, I can never understand why guys practically starve themselves and end up as weak as a lamb to make weight. Eating, training properly and making weight without major issues must be the way to go.

It's such an advantage for them to be bigger. They know what they're doing. But now and then they get it wrong and are either dead at the weight, fade badly in the second half of a fight or suffer a severe injury. Younger fighters seem to find it easier than older ones too.

Sure I understand why they cut weight, if done properly if gives a huge advantage but quite often you listen to decent fighters admit they had no clue about diets or nutrition, especially when they were nobodies on the circuit, they end up doing or sorts of stupid things to cut weight and invariably pay the price in the fight.

[Ezzard]

I agree weight cutting is very dangerous, I can never understand why guys practically starve themselves and end up as weak as a lamb to make weight. Eating, training properly and making weight without major issues must be the way to go.

It's such an advantage for them to be bigger. They know what they're doing. But now and then they get it wrong and are either dead at the weight, fade badly in the second half of a fight or suffer a severe injury. Younger fighters seem to find it easier than older ones too.

Sure I understand why they cut weight, if done properly if gives a huge advantage but quite often you listen to decent fighters admit they had no clue about diets or nutrition, especially when they were nobodies on the circuit, they end up doing or sorts of stupid things to cut weight and invariably pay the price in the fight.

Duran's laxatives!

[Controversial]

It's such an advantage for them to be bigger. They know what they're doing. But now and then they get it wrong and are either dead at the weight, fade badly in the second half of a fight or suffer a severe injury. Younger fighters seem to find it easier than older ones too.

Sure I understand why they cut weight, if done properly if gives a huge advantage but quite often you listen to decent fighters admit they had no clue about diets or nutrition, especially when they were nobodies on the circuit, they end up doing or sorts of stupid things to cut weight and invariably pay the price in the fight.

Duran's laxatives!

Coincidently I listed to an interview with Chris Byrd today and he was asked why he dropped to LHW at the end of his career and even Byrd admitted he was clueless about how to drop weight properly. This is a former Olympian and HW champion of the world and even he had no idea about nutrition or how to lose weight, pretty amazing really. I guess he never had to do it before but you kind of assume top class athletes know this sort of stuff. Lots have zero idea. Byrd basically starved himself, overtrained and was running 15 miles a day. He said he was so weak it was no surprise he lost. Sadly he is talking about a comeback aged 51

[Ambling Alp II]

Most fighters start sliding before their mid-30s. The guys that you mentioned earlier (Tyson, Ali, Liston, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier ) all were clearly past their best by their mid-30s.
Well you, myself and others are comparing eras. We do it all the time. Yes we actually can compare different eras if we do it in a smart way.
You didn't actually use the word "sucked" but you might as well have. Saying that an era must not have been good (to paraphrase you) if one guy had a lot of fights and was still one of the best is not a good way. And of course we you say his era was not good it indirectly makes Langford not look as good.

Yes he had a mileage on him. To some degree it hastened his decline. However, he was so good that he could still beat great fighters even when he was slightly past his best.
It happened. Maybe it sounds strange to you. But it happened. We shouldn't give a guy credit for the sheer amount of fights or wins or KOs, or title defense. Statistics in boxing are very often misleading.
However we should credit to a guy for beating a great fighter. Langford did that often.

Sometimes there is a guy who doesn't fit the cookie cutter image we have a of a fighter. Maybe he is small. Maybe he has a weird style; whatever it might be. If a guy showed that could do it, he could do it. Langford showed that he could do it.

I said he was a great fighter. For his era. Boxing was different in those times for lots of reasons but just because he could do what he done then doesn't mean he could do the same a century later to a world class HW. They were often working day jobs and fighting at short notice, little in the way of health checks, nothing stopping opponents fighting under false names, injured, fighting soon after knockout defeats, crossing state lines and fighting elsewhere etc. In those aspects the sport wasn't professional, corruption was rife as many were desperate for money in those times. In 1944 Cocoa Kid was discharged from the navy as he was diagnosed with pugilistic dementia. He carried on boxing for four years. I just think many in that era were pretty damaged to be fighting that regular. Read through some of Langfords fights, a few comments like "faked fight", "bout stopped by police to allow opponent to recover", newspaper weights different to the official weights, opponent replaced at the last minute, neither man willing to fight etc.. Things like that were not uncommon in those times. Langford was thought to be going blind after the Fulton fight in 1917. Five years later in 1922 aged 36 Langford knocked out future world MW champ and IBHOF member Tiger Flowers in 2 rounds. At this point Langford was pretty much blind, way past his best and had close to 300 fights. Can you see something like that happening today because I can't, the sport was just different. He was great in his era I'm not disputing that but you just don't get anyone having these sorts of careers anymore. It’s not like there hasn’t been great HWs since but as we've said by around 35-55 fights they are past it.

He wasn't just a great fighter for his era. He was a great fighter period. One of the very best all time.
If a fighter right was losing his eyesight, he would be able to get a license somewhere. This is sport that is still unregulated. In the last 20 years there have certainly been guys that shouldn't have been fighting that were allowed.

That point aside, it doesn't make his era weaker or himself not as great of a fighter.

It's not that surprising that he beat Tiger Flowers in 1922. I didn't count it because it's insignificant. Flowers weighed in the 150s. Langford weighed in the 180s. Lang ford was not beating top fighters anymore. In fact he was struggling with tomato cans by this point. In the fight before he fought Flowers, he had a draw with Ted Jamieson. In the fight after Flowers, he had a draw with Bearcat Wright. Look up these guys careers.
Earlier in the year he lost to Bill Tate. He was nowhere near the fighter that he had once been and the results show that.

When he was in his 20s he had several wins over great fighters and good fighters. It happened. Deal with it.

[Controversial]

Most fighters start sliding before their mid-30s. The guys that you mentioned earlier (Tyson, Ali, Liston, Holyfield, Marciano, Frazier ) all were clearly past their best by their mid-30s.
Well you, myself and others are comparing eras. We do it all the time. Yes we actually can compare different eras if we do it in a smart way.
You didn't actually use the word "sucked" but you might as well have. Saying that an era must not have been good (to paraphrase you) if one guy had a lot of fights and was still one of the best is not a good way. And of course we you say his era was not good it indirectly makes Langford not look as good.

Yes he had a mileage on him. To some degree it hastened his decline. However, he was so good that he could still beat great fighters even when he was slightly past his best.
It happened. Maybe it sounds strange to you. But it happened. We shouldn't give a guy credit for the sheer amount of fights or wins or KOs, or title defense. Statistics in boxing are very often misleading.
However we should credit to a guy for beating a great fighter. Langford did that often.

Sometimes there is a guy who doesn't fit the cookie cutter image we have a of a fighter. Maybe he is small. Maybe he has a weird style; whatever it might be. If a guy showed that could do it, he could do it. Langford showed that he could do it.

I said he was a great fighter. For his era. Boxing was different in those times for lots of reasons but just because he could do what he done then doesn't mean he could do the same a century later to a world class HW. They were often working day jobs and fighting at short notice, little in the way of health checks, nothing stopping opponents fighting under false names, injured, fighting soon after knockout defeats, crossing state lines and fighting elsewhere etc. In those aspects the sport wasn't professional, corruption was rife as many were desperate for money in those times. In 1944 Cocoa Kid was discharged from the navy as he was diagnosed with pugilistic dementia. He carried on boxing for four years. I just think many in that era were pretty damaged to be fighting that regular. Read through some of Langfords fights, a few comments like "faked fight", "bout stopped by police to allow opponent to recover", newspaper weights different to the official weights, opponent replaced at the last minute, neither man willing to fight etc.. Things like that were not uncommon in those times. Langford was thought to be going blind after the Fulton fight in 1917. Five years later in 1922 aged 36 Langford knocked out future world MW champ and IBHOF member Tiger Flowers in 2 rounds. At this point Langford was pretty much blind, way past his best and had close to 300 fights. Can you see something like that happening today because I can't, the sport was just different. He was great in his era I'm not disputing that but you just don't get anyone having these sorts of careers anymore. It’s not like there hasn’t been great HWs since but as we've said by around 35-55 fights they are past it.

He wasn't just a great fighter for his era. He was a great fighter period. One of the very best all time.
If a fighter right was losing his eyesight, he would be able to get a license somewhere. This is sport that is still unregulated. In the last 20 years there have certainly been guys that shouldn't have been fighting that were allowed.

That point aside, it doesn't make his era weaker or himself not as great of a fighter.

It's not that surprising that he beat Tiger Flowers in 1922. I didn't count it because it's insignificant. Flowers weighed in the 150s. Langford weighed in the 180s. Lang ford was not beating top fighters anymore. In fact he was struggling with tomato cans by this point. In the fight before he fought Flowers, he had a draw with Ted Jamieson. In the fight after Flowers, he had a draw with Bearcat Wright. Look up these guys careers.
Earlier in the year he lost to Bill Tate. He was nowhere near the fighter that he had once been and the results show that.

When he was in his 20s he had several wins over great fighters and good fighters. It happened. Deal with it.

There's a difference between ranking people as overall ATGs and how they would do in head to heads. As an ATG yes he was but that doesn't mean you could plonk him into any HW era and expect the same success. Marciano was great but would he be unbeaten in other eras too, no he wouldn't. Funny how the weight difference is an issue when it suits you although I can't find any weights for them in that bout so not sure where you are getting 150 and 180 from as two fights previous Flowers fought for a LHW "title". Langford was old, blind and shot to pieces in 1922 yet he still managed to knock out Flowers who was a future MW champ who also fought at LHW plus beat HWs too. Two years later in 1924 Flowers lost a decision to Greb when Greb was MW world champ, some thought Flowers won. Less than a month later Greb fought Gene Tunney to a draw at LHW. This again just highlights how all over the place boxing was in those times, thats not a criticism, its just how it was. Wills was knocked out before he fought Langford by an 8-8-1 fighter. Jeanette lost multiple times. You raved about Wills but had Klitschko been knocked out by a 8-8-1 fighter you would laugh.

[Ambling Alp II]

You said Langford was great for his era. I simply corrected it and said that he was great period.
If you are that great, then yes you can be plunked into any era and be successful. Would he have been the top heavyweight in the early 1970s? No. But he would have at least a serious contender in any era. Same for Marciano. Things didn't get magically better when you became a fan.

As for the weight difference, I have explained this many times in many threads, but will do it again.

Weighing say 185 (Langford) and fighting an opponent that is about 155 (Flowers) is a huge advantage. Which is why it doesn't count this as a big win for Langford.

It's why we have weight classes. But at a certain point, extra weight stops being an advantage. At a later point it becomes a disadvantage. At a certain point, the typical advantages in power, and taking a punch stops. And the disadvantages, (speed, defense, stamina) continue to go against a fighter.
It's not like a a guy weighing 300 has an advantage over a guy weighing 250. And 350 has it over a guy weighing 300. Doesn't work that way.

A guy weighing 225 has a serious advantage over a guy weighing 175.
A guy weighing 275 does not have that same advantage over a guy weighing 225.
There is an ideal size.

Flowers scoring a near upset and Greb beating Tunney (later avenged) doesn't mean "boxing was all over the place."

Wills had 7 fights in his career when he lost to a the guy 8-8-1. Had only been a pro for a year. Not exactly the same as having this that happening in his prime.
Wills wasn't the best of all time. There are certainly things you can criticism him for. But he was clearly a great fighter.
Langford and Wills fought many times.
Langford knocked him out 2x when he was Langford was in his prime. When Langford started, to get old, Will started to take control of their series.

[Controversial]

Things didn't get magically better when you became a fan.

Where are you getting that Flowers was 150 and Langford was 180?

I was a boxing fan long before the Klits, Im not really a fan of either but they were both difficult opponents. Especially for a 5'6 fighter, outweighed by 60lbs, with no jab who swung with both arms and mainly held his hands low, if he fought a HW today like that he would be in big trouble very quick.

[Ambling Alp II]

I estimated earlier that Langford was about 185 and Flowers was around 155.
Flowers was at 160 in a fight two months later. 3 months earlier he weighed 153.
Langford weighed 185 in a fight two weeks later. He weighed 190 in a fight 5 months earlier.

Langford had a jab. Not sure why you would say he didn't.
As for holding your hands low, if you have the ability to do that, (.ie. fast on their feet, reflexes, head movement) you actually should. You can get off your own punches faster. Ali, Roy Jones, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes did that all the time in their primes, and they were great defensive fighters. Most fighters don't have that ability.

Yes really fighters are supposed to be beat smaller ones. The reasoning being is that they are... heavier.
That they usually are easier targets, don't throw nearly as many punches, have worse stamina, etc. is not to be considered.
Nor should it be considered if the smaller guy was smarter and tougher.

In Mythcial Fights it works almost 100% of the time. (The exception when the bigger fighter fought long a go and is up against a modern fighter) In real life, not so much.

[Controversial]

I estimated earlier that Langford was about 185 and Flowers was around 155.
Flowers was at 160 in a fight two months later. 3 months earlier he weighed 153.
Langford weighed 185 in a fight two weeks later. He weighed 190 in a fight 5 months earlier.

Langford had a jab. Not sure why you would say he didn't.
As for holding your hands low, if you have the ability to do that, (.ie. fast on their feet, reflexes, head movement) you actually should. You can get off your own punches faster. Ali, Roy Jones, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes did that all the time in their primes, and they were great defensive fighters. Most fighters don't have that ability.

Yes really fighters are supposed to be beat smaller ones. The reasoning being is that they are... heavier.
That they usually are easier targets, don't throw nearly as many punches, have worse stamina, etc. is not to be considered.
Nor should it be considered if the smaller guy was smarter and tougher.

In Mythcial Fights it works almost 100% of the time. (The exception when the bigger fighter fought long a go and is up against a modern fighter) In real life, not so much.

And two fights earlier Flowers fought at LHW.

There is little footage of Langford, what there is shows someone who came forward and threw wide punches with both hands, very little use of the jab. He used his left more to push opponents back and get his distance, he wasn't popping it out like an Ali or Holmes was he. Ali, RJJ etc had good movement, from what I've seen of Langford he wasn't a mover, he stood his ground and traded. He could obviously get away with this in those times. Someone with a decent jab, power, size and the ability to keep him at distance would be all wrong for him, especially when they are a foot taller.

[margaret thatcher]

sam the wildman

[Ambling Alp II]

I estimated earlier that Langford was about 185 and Flowers was around 155.
Flowers was at 160 in a fight two months later. 3 months earlier he weighed 153.
Langford weighed 185 in a fight two weeks later. He weighed 190 in a fight 5 months earlier.

Langford had a jab. Not sure why you would say he didn't.
As for holding your hands low, if you have the ability to do that, (.ie. fast on their feet, reflexes, head movement) you actually should. You can get off your own punches faster. Ali, Roy Jones, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes did that all the time in their primes, and they were great defensive fighters. Most fighters don't have that ability.

Yes really fighters are supposed to be beat smaller ones. The reasoning being is that they are... heavier.
That they usually are easier targets, don't throw nearly as many punches, have worse stamina, etc. is not to be considered.
Nor should it be considered if the smaller guy was smarter and tougher.

In Mythcial Fights it works almost 100% of the time. (The exception when the bigger fighter fought long a go and is up against a modern fighter) In real life, not so much.

And two fights earlier Flowers fought at LHW.

There is little footage of Langford, what there is shows someone who came forward and threw wide punches with both hands, very little use of the jab. He used his left more to push opponents back and get his distance, he wasn't popping it out like an Ali or Holmes was he. Ali, RJJ etc had good movement, from what I've seen of Langford he wasn't a mover, he stood his ground and traded. He could obviously get away with this in those times. Someone with a decent jab, power, size and the ability to keep him at distance would be all wrong for him, especially when they are a foot taller.

Guess I am just going to say that I have disagreed with most of what you have been saying, including this this last post. Just not on the same page as you, at all.

[margaret thatcher]

walking those dudes down without a jab, winging in huge ass haymakers from the rafters, sam was a strong scary little man . looks nearly unbeatable

[Controversial]

I estimated earlier that Langford was about 185 and Flowers was around 155.
Flowers was at 160 in a fight two months later. 3 months earlier he weighed 153.
Langford weighed 185 in a fight two weeks later. He weighed 190 in a fight 5 months earlier.

Langford had a jab. Not sure why you would say he didn't.
As for holding your hands low, if you have the ability to do that, (.ie. fast on their feet, reflexes, head movement) you actually should. You can get off your own punches faster. Ali, Roy Jones, Gene Tunney, Larry Holmes did that all the time in their primes, and they were great defensive fighters. Most fighters don't have that ability.

Yes really fighters are supposed to be beat smaller ones. The reasoning being is that they are... heavier.
That they usually are easier targets, don't throw nearly as many punches, have worse stamina, etc. is not to be considered.
Nor should it be considered if the smaller guy was smarter and tougher.

In Mythcial Fights it works almost 100% of the time. (The exception when the bigger fighter fought long a go and is up against a modern fighter) In real life, not so much.

And two fights earlier Flowers fought at LHW.

There is little footage of Langford, what there is shows someone who came forward and threw wide punches with both hands, very little use of the jab. He used his left more to push opponents back and get his distance, he wasn't popping it out like an Ali or Holmes was he. Ali, RJJ etc had good movement, from what I've seen of Langford he wasn't a mover, he stood his ground and traded. He could obviously get away with this in those times. Someone with a decent jab, power, size and the ability to keep him at distance would be all wrong for him, especially when they are a foot taller.

Guess I am just going to say that I have disagreed with most of what you have been saying, including this this last post. Just not on the same page as you, at all.

And that's fair enough, it's good to have different opinions, it'll be boring if we all thought the same thing. I'm just going by what I see with my eyes, he was an attacking fighter, kind of wild at times and I can't really see much of a jab. You obviously see something different.

[margaret thatcher]

hardly a jab to be seen, many wide arse haymakers though

lemme guess, somehow the old film makes jabs invisible lol

[Cap]

Langford determined his own style based on the opponent he was fighting. He out-boxed the great Joe Gans, considered one of the most scientific boxers of his day. He KO'd Fireman Jim Flynn in one round, a rugged brawler who knew every dirty trick in the book. Sam boxed when he had to and slugged when slugging was called for.

Even fifty years after Langford retired, experts who had seen him fight, considered him the greatest mitt artist of all time. Sam was a one-in-a-generation fighter, like Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali. We probably will never see another like them again. There have been other "great" fighters like Dempsey, Tunney, Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Lewis, etc. but they aren't in the same elite class, though they stand head and shoulders over what passes for heavyweights these days.

[Ascended]

Only lunatics said Sam no one even made amateurs fighting like they did from his era in the 70s, so how would Sam win boxers became more advanced by a good amount in 80 and the '90s and then early 00s

It's mutiple videos showing how much more advanced those era's were and there's no footage to show anybody from Sam era were even close to as advanced

And judging a fighter by watching highlights is beyond idiotic highlights are best moments they don't show everything