sam langford vs vitali klitscshko

[Ezzard]

There are too many ways for fighters to avoid one another, and way too much is made of unbeaten records.

Boy have you got that right Ezz. It’s hilarious to read all the posters in the Current scene talking about whether Taylor can come back from his loss to Pavlik. It’s one loss, FFS. The only reason he wouldn’t be able to come back is if he decides he has enough money and doesn’t want to get hit anymore.

That's exactly how I see it.... except that there are a lot of fragile egos in the sport these days.

[Cap]

Langford was one of the hardest hitting heavyweights in ring history. This is simple fact. Langford carried concussive force in his mitts that was only rivaled by guys like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Foreman. He knocked out several very large men, including HOFers Harry Wills and Big George Godfrey.

Vitali Klitschko is out of it now because of a seemingly very fragile body. It would've been very informative to have been able to see him in the ring with James Toney. James Toney at his very best would've been similar to Langford on an average day, minus the KO power.

As for champs ducking guys, just look back to the cowardly way Jack Johnson ducked Langford.

I'm not saying that ALL oldtime fighters are better than today's crop. There were, however, some who were freaks of nature, unique combinations of power, skill, agility and ring brains. These men would be stars in any era.
Cap

[Tantum]

And a great little man usually will beat a good big man.

And you guys still haven't answered my question...


Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

I'd go for Tarver, but if the logic is that simple then how did Langford beat Wills?

Langford beat Wills...?

First off, Wills was 6'2".

Secondly, they fought like 18 times, and Langford won 2 fights.

[Tantum]

Langford was one of the hardest hitting heavyweights in ring history.

They also wore tiny ass gloves back then.

[Tantum]

There are too many ways for fighters to avoid one another, and way too much is made of unbeaten records.

Boy have you got that right Ezz. It’s hilarious to read all the posters in the Current scene talking about whether Taylor can come back from his loss to Pavlik. It’s one loss, FFS. The only reason he wouldn’t be able to come back is if he decides he has enough money and doesn’t want to get hit anymore.

Totally agree with this post.

[pound per pound]

And a great little man usually will beat a good big man.

And you guys still haven't answered my question...

Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

I think Tarver beats Chavez.

To Ambling Alp, Vitlai wasn't a good fighter who was big. Vitlai was a good fighter who was huge. A good huge figher will beat a great little fighter.

We are talking about over a foot in height, and 75 pounds in weight here.

[Tantum]

Something for Sam Langford to consider, before fighting Vitali Klitschko...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5eZMpR9tPU

[dempseyfire]

And a great little man usually will beat a good big man.

And you guys still haven't answered my question...

Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

I think Tarver beats Chavez.

To Ambling Alp, Vitlai wasn't a good fighter who was big. Vitlai was a good fighter who was huge. A good huge figher will beat a great little fighter.

We are talking about over a foot in height, and 75 pounds in weight here.

People were saying the same thing before Chagaev-Valuev.

[Ambling Alp]

Just wanted to make a few points:
Harry Wills was taller than the 6'2 that he is reported in Boxrec. Everywhere else that I have seen has him at 6'3 or 6'4. Langford had a lot of success in their series when he was still close to his prime. When he got older, Wills started to dominate.

Harry Wills was a much better fighter than Klitschko. It's isn't hard to imagine the much quicker and severly more skilled Langford outworking Klitschko.

You also have to realize that a certain point extra weight is no longer an advantage and at a certain point it becomes a disavantage. There are stamina and speed issues to consider as well. Not to mention that a much bigger man is a a much bigger target.

Klitschko wouldn't have had a 75 pound weight advantage during most of Langford's career. During most of Langford's prime he weighed around 190. This would mean that Klitschko would outweigh him by 55 pounds.

Do I think Tarver would beat Chavez? Yes. However, the talent ability between Chavez and Tarver isn't as great as Langford and Klitschko. Langford had more ability than Chavez (as great as Chavez was) and Tarver had more ability than Klitschko.

The Chavez-Tarver comparison is not as valid as Dempsey crushing Willard and Louis crushing Carnera.
Klitschko was better than Willard or Carnera, but he was much closer to their level than he was to Dempsey,Louis or Langford.

Langford was one of the Top 20 heavyweights of All-Time. Kltischko isn't remotely close to this.
You have to weigh the size difference against the ability difference. I agree, more often than not a well conditioned bigger fighter will win because the ability gap isn't enough to overcome the size difference.

However, you have judge each matchup on an individual basis. Kltischko wouldn't be able to keep Langford at bay with his jab. Langford would have a huge target to hit. Klitschko was very slow and wasn't hard to hit at all. Klitschko could punch but he wasn't a brutal puncher that would likley knockout anyone like Langford out with one punch. He was way too slow to nail Langford with combinations. Langford should be able to outwork him and probably win a decision, possibly stopping him late.

The size gap between Klitschko and Langford is big. However, the gap in ability is even greater.

[dempseyfire]

Just wanted to make a few points:
Harry Wills was taller than the 6'2 that he is reported in Boxrec. Everywhere else that I have seen has him at 6'3 or 6'4. Langford had a lot of success in their series when he was still close to his prime. When he got older, Wills started to dominate.

Harry Wills was a much better fighter than Klitschko. It's isn't hard to imagine the much quicker and severly more skilled Langford outworking Klitschko.

You also have to realize that a certain point extra weight is no longer an advantage and at a certain point it becomes a disavantage. There are stamina and speed issues to consider as well. Not to mention that a much bigger man is a a much bigger target.

Klitschko wouldn't have had a 75 pound weight advantage during most of Langford's career. During most of Langford's prime he weighed around 190. This would mean that Klitschko would outweigh him by 55 pounds.

Do I think Tarver would beat Chavez? Yes. However, the talent ability between Chavez and Tarver isn't as great as Langford and Klitschko. Langford had more ability than Chavez (as great as Chavez was) and Tarver had more ability than Klitschko.

The Chavez-Tarver comparison is not as valid as Dempsey crushing Willard and Louis crushing Carnera.
Klitschko was better than Willard or Carnera, but he was much closer to their level than he was to Dempsey,Louis or Langford.

Langford was one of the Top 20 heavyweights of All-Time. Kltischko isn't remotely close to this.
You have to weigh the size difference against the ability difference. I agree, more often than not a well conditioned bigger fighter will win because the ability gap isn't enough to overcome the size difference.

However, you have judge each matchup on an individual basis. Kltischko wouldn't be able to keep Langford at bay with his jab. Langford would have a huge target to hit. Klitschko was very slow and wasn't hard to hit at all. Klitschko could punch but he wasn't a brutal puncher that would likley knockout anyone like Langford out with one punch. He was way too slow to nail Langford with combinations. Langford should be able to outwork him and probably win a decision, possibly stopping him late.

The size gap between Klitschko and Langford is big. However, the gap in ability is even greater.

Vitali was a better boxer than Williard but was not as big a puncher nor had the stamina of the Mid-Westerner.

[pound per pound]

And you guys still haven't answered my question...

Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

I think Tarver beats Chavez.

To Ambling Alp, Vitlai wasn't a good fighter who was big. Vitlai was a good fighter who was huge. A good huge figher will beat a great little fighter.

We are talking about over a foot in height, and 75 pounds in weight here.

People were saying the same thing before Chagaev-Valuev.

Please. Valuev is not a good fighter. He is only a big fighter. And besides Chagaev was 230 pounds. Not a small fry like Langford would be at 175.

A skilled 230 pound fighter can beat an average skilled 300 pound fighter, but show me a 175 pound fighter beating a skilled 250 pound fighter. It has not happened in boxing history. And no Carnera doesn't qualify either, though the big guy had enough to defeat an all time great at 175 pounds in Loughran.

You're asking Langford at 5'6" 175 pounds to beat Vitali at 6'8" 250 pounds. Unlike Valuev, Vitali can punch, and fight. Langford is in over his head literally and figuratively.

[pound per pound]

Langford was one of the hardest hitting heavyweights in ring history. This is simple fact. Langford carried concussive force in his mitts that was only rivaled by guys like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Foreman. He knocked out several very large men, including HOFers Harry Wills and Big George Godfrey.

Vitali Klitschko is out of it now because of a seemingly very fragile body. It would've been very informative to have been able to see him in the ring with James Toney. James Toney at his very best would've been similar to Langford on an average day, minus the KO power.

As for champs ducking guys, just look back to the cowardly way Jack Johnson ducked Langford.

I'm not saying that ALL oldtime fighters are better than today's crop. There were, however, some who were freaks of nature, unique combinations of power, skill, agility and ring brains. These men would be stars in any era.
Cap

A moderately skilled and conditioned Sam Peter owned Toney. Toney had to fight tooth and nail vs Jirov. Toney was also on juice. We can’t say how good he would be without it.

Vitlai would easily beat on Toney. He's more skilled than Peter, more active, and harder to hit. Vitali fought two former cruisers as a pro. They were Hide and Norris. The two men lasted a combined three rounds. Norris went many rounds with powerful heavyweights. Nothign was wrong with his chin. Toney had his chance to fight Wlad for the title. He turned the fight down. It was a wise decision for him.

While Langford could hit, he really does not have a great knock out percentage. There are too many decisions and draws on his record when Sam was in his prime from 1907-1915. A true power puncher doesn't go to the score cards very often, and he should never carry journeyman.

[theone]

Harry Wills was a much better fighter than Klitschko.

Based on what? How many films have you seen of Wills to make this assessment? Is it all based on old newspaper clippings? Word of mouth?

You also have to realize that a certain point extra weight is no longer an advantage and at a certain point it becomes a disavantage. There are stamina and speed issues to consider as well. Not to mention that a much bigger man is a a much bigger target.

Yeah but the smaller man still has to get close enough to land on the bigger guy and thats going to leave him vulnerable. Langford would really have to invest and risk ALOT to land a good shot.

[Seamus]

If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.

[Ambling Alp]

To answer a few comments:
Once again, Langford was around 190 when he was at his peak, not 175. No, I don't think a skilled 190 pound fighter would beat a fighter that weighed 245-250 with close to as much skill.. However, Klitschko isn't a "skilled" heavyweight. He was lacking in many skills.

If you are impressed with Klitschko knocking out Hide and Norris, well thats a little different than knocking out an all time great. Why did a shot Larry Donald last so long with him? Where was the power against Byrd? He nailed Sanders with punch after punch and couldn't drop him.
Yes he could punch, but he certainly didn't have incredible knockout power.

Langford didn't have a real high ko%? Fights weren't stopped nearly as easy as they are now. If he was fighting now he would have a much higher ko %. This is not to say that Langford would necessarily knockout Klitschko. I think Langford would probably win a decision.

As for Langford getting punish inside? How? By Klitschko? No way. Klitschko would have to keep him at bay and he didn't have the jab to do it.

Why do I think Wills was better? He beat a lot of good fighters. Klitschko didn't. Fighters didn't magically get better overnight just because of film. Surely you have seen Dempsey on film and know how good he was. Langford and Wills primes weren't that long before Dempsey and many people thought Langford was as good and that Wills was very good as well.

Why don't a smaller guys beat the big boys? They have.
Spinks did it in the 1980's, then Holyfield did it and Moorer did it in the 1990's, Jones did it. Chris Byrd wasn't exactly a natural 215 either.
Interesting that until 1985, no lightheavyweight ever moved up and won the heavyweight title. Many tried and failed against the "smaller" heavyweight champions.

Yet since then, with all the big heavyweights, 3 times a lightheavyweight champion has moved up to win the title and Holyfield moved up from cruiserweight to do it. How is this possible? Because skill matters. If the difference in skill is greater than the size difference, the smaller man will probably win.

If size was that all important, then the biggest guy would always be the best in any era. When has that ever been the case, in any era? Is Valuev the best now? No.

[Robinson]

I have been watching boxing alot longer than five years..and to be honest
I prefer to watch fights from 30s-late 90s.

I agree that the reason why greatness has been lost is because the fragmentation of titles and division champs has become so common place now, that fighters can not or do not go after one another in order to unifiy titles.

It is easier to make more money in Boxing these days, especially now that we have so many 'titles', TV fighters and Reality show boxers.

Other sports are a threat because to a great many people boxing has lost relevancy and its flagship division has been without a defining star.

I asked a bunch of people I work with, some who are 'fight' fans who they thought would win between Peters and Klitschko some times back and they stared at me blankly.

Yet they all know who is the UFC champ.

To me that is a problem for boxing.


Point taken regarding the Ballet. However ir-respective of poor film quality, you can see 'bad form' in those early fight films.

Thanks again

kym

[dempseyfire]

If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.

Evander Holyfield???

The two top prospects coming up are small 6'1 HWs Povetkin and Solis, who could both weigh 200 easy if they were really training like champions.

Peter couldn't even stop a pathetically fat and old Toney in the rematch. In their first fight the 5'9 37 year old fat boy made him look like a tool. And Langford was 20 times the fighter of a HW James Toney.

[Ezzard]

And you guys still haven't answered my question...


Would Julio Cesar Chavez have beaten Antonio Tarver?

I'd go for Tarver, but if the logic is that simple then how did Langford beat Wills?

Langford beat Wills...?

First off, Wills was 6'2".

Secondly, they fought like 18 times, and Langford won 2 fights.

Yes, but the size difference is big enough for this to be worth consideration. Many would tell you that Wills was a much better fighter too.

It seems as if Wills got the better of the series once Langford started to fade.

Although I pick Langford I wouldn't rule out a Klitschko win. This is a hard fight to call and we're talking Langford, probably the greatest of the small HWs.

[Ezzard]

Just wanted to make a few points:
Harry Wills was taller than the 6'2 that he is reported in Boxrec. Everywhere else that I have seen has him at 6'3 or 6'4. Langford had a lot of success in their series when he was still close to his prime. When he got older, Wills started to dominate.

Harry Wills was a much better fighter than Klitschko. It's isn't hard to imagine the much quicker and severly more skilled Langford outworking Klitschko.

You also have to realize that a certain point extra weight is no longer an advantage and at a certain point it becomes a disavantage. There are stamina and speed issues to consider as well. Not to mention that a much bigger man is a a much bigger target.

Klitschko wouldn't have had a 75 pound weight advantage during most of Langford's career. During most of Langford's prime he weighed around 190. This would mean that Klitschko would outweigh him by 55 pounds.

Do I think Tarver would beat Chavez? Yes. However, the talent ability between Chavez and Tarver isn't as great as Langford and Klitschko. Langford had more ability than Chavez (as great as Chavez was) and Tarver had more ability than Klitschko.

The Chavez-Tarver comparison is not as valid as Dempsey crushing Willard and Louis crushing Carnera.
Klitschko was better than Willard or Carnera, but he was much closer to their level than he was to Dempsey,Louis or Langford.

Langford was one of the Top 20 heavyweights of All-Time. Kltischko isn't remotely close to this.
You have to weigh the size difference against the ability difference. I agree, more often than not a well conditioned bigger fighter will win because the ability gap isn't enough to overcome the size difference.

However, you have judge each matchup on an individual basis. Kltischko wouldn't be able to keep Langford at bay with his jab. Langford would have a huge target to hit. Klitschko was very slow and wasn't hard to hit at all. Klitschko could punch but he wasn't a brutal puncher that would likley knockout anyone like Langford out with one punch. He was way too slow to nail Langford with combinations. Langford should be able to outwork him and probably win a decision, possibly stopping him late.

The size gap between Klitschko and Langford is big. However, the gap in ability is even greater.

I also was of the impression that Wills was bigger than 6' 2" but I don't have any evidence to back it up. I was surprised when I saw that on boxrec.

I do think that Vitali was a better fighter than Tarver though.

[Ezzard]

. Toney was also on juice. We can’t say how good he would be without it.

My guess is that Vitali was too.

[Ezzard]

If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.

I know I'm siding with Langford but I do agree with this post.

You could say that Holyfield managed it but that's about it.

[Ezzard]

Mickey Walker had quite a decent run against HWs. He got bashed up by Schmeling but Max was a great HW who beat Louis.

[Friedie]

Mickey Walker had quite a decent run against HWs. He got bashed up by Schmeling but Max was a great HW who beat Louis.

and it was Max' first fight after they robbed him the Heavyweight Title. He was very motivated in this fight to demonstrate that he was still the best Heavyweight of the world. Sharkey reached only a draw against Walker the year before.

[Cap]

If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.

"Some guy"? Sam Langford was not "some guy".

[Ambling Alp]

If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.

I know I'm siding with Langford but I do agree with this post.

You could say that Holyfield managed it but that's about it.

Maybe you missed my post. Smaller fighters with ability have moved up and been very successful. Michael Spinks moved up from lightheavyweight and won the heavyweight title. Michael Moorer did it as well. So did Roy Jones. Up until 1985, no lightheavyweight champion moved up and was able to win the heavyweight title against the "smaller" heavyweights, and many tried. Since then 3 have done it and Holyfield did it after moving up from cruiserweight. They did in an era of big heavyweights.

Chris Byrd was a "small" heavyweight and he was one of the top heavyweights for several years. He couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. Why is it hard to imagine smaller heavyweights that could really punch and who were much better than Byrd beating big heavyweights of today?

Of course a significant size advantages is a factor, but you have judge it on a case by case basis. You have to weigh the size advantage against the ability advantage. In some cases, the smaller fighter would win because he has that much more ability.