BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote:He's just being contrarian.

Buy him a beer.....he'll see the light.

No, I'm really having a hard time seeing how someone can so quickly discount the opinion of somebody who knew both men well. I didn't quote Grantland Rice (who was of the same opinion as Langford) because somebody could say he was prejudiced because he was Dempsey's friend and white. But Langford had no motive to do anything but speak his real opinion, as far as I know.

A hypothetical motive could be that he lost to Wills so many times, albeit past his best. What is Manny Pacquiao's motive for calling Barrera a tougher opponent than Morales or Marquez? Fighters use all kinds of psychological stuff to maintain the mental aspect of the sport. 99.9% of them will cite the hardest puncher they ever faced as someone they beat, even if someone else knocked them out.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Why would Sam Langford automatically know more about it than us?

A. He fought Wills several times.
B. He reportedly sparred with Dempsey several times between 1917 and 1919. (Reportedly, because I've read a couple of secondary sources that say it, but never read any primary sources).
C. Even if he didn't spar with Dempsey, he certainly had seen Dempsey in action.
D. Langford was very knowledgeable about boxing and boxers of that era.

So, I'd say that Langford was more knowledgeable about it than us. Was he right? I don't know; they never fought. It was just his opinion. He could have been wrong. But it is mighty hard for me to discount or ignore his opinion. But if I did I'd want to say something more than I disagree just because I do or intimate that I have superior knowledge.

I already said I didn't discount his opinion, I just didn't agree with it. I don't know why my disagreeing with Sam Langford's opinion of the hypothetical Wills vs Dempsey fight is such a big deal to you.

raylawpc wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Why would Sam Langford automatically know more about it than us?

A. He fought Wills several times.
B. He reportedly sparred with Dempsey several times between 1917 and 1919. (Reportedly, because I've read a couple of secondary sources that say it, but never read any primary sources).
C. Even if he didn't spar with Dempsey, he certainly had seen Dempsey in action.
D. Langford was very knowledgeable about boxing and boxers of that era.

So, I'd say that Langford was more knowledgeable about it than us. Was he right? I don't know; they never fought. It was just his opinion. He could have been wrong. But it is mighty hard for me to discount or ignore his opinion. But if I did I'd want to say something more than I disagree just because I do or intimate that I have superior knowledge.

I wouldn't say discount it, sure, take it into account, for good reasons which you pointed to.

I'm just saying I don't believe he inherently knows more, or has more credibility than fighters of today have when they talk about opponents, as opposed to an observer's view.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Why would Sam Langford automatically know more about it than us?

A. He fought Wills several times.
B. He reportedly sparred with Dempsey several times between 1917 and 1919. (Reportedly, because I've read a couple of secondary sources that say it, but never read any primary sources).
C. Even if he didn't spar with Dempsey, he certainly had seen Dempsey in action.
D. Langford was very knowledgeable about boxing and boxers of that era.

So, I'd say that Langford was more knowledgeable about it than us. Was he right? I don't know; they never fought. It was just his opinion. He could have been wrong. But it is mighty hard for me to discount or ignore his opinion. But if I did I'd want to say something more than I disagree just because I do or intimate that I have superior knowledge.

I wouldn't say discount it, sure, take it into account, for good reasons which you pointed to.

I'm just saying I don't believe he inherently knows more, or has more credibility than fighters of today have when they talk about opponents, as opposed to an observer's view.

I think he knew more about the fighters of his day, at least in terms of their abilities at a given point in time. I don't think he was invariably correct, but if you think he was wrong I think you need something more than, in essence, "because I disagree with him."

The difference between Langford's opinion and fighters of today is that, with the latter, we, too, can see and evaluate those fighters. Just because they are fighters doesn't make them right. However, none of us have seen Dempsey and Wills except on some grainy old films. Langford saw them up close and live. (And so did Grantland Rice, who also picked Dempsey over Wills.)

raylawpc wrote:
I think he knew more about the fighters of his day, at least in terms of their abilities at a given point in time. I don't think he was invariably correct, but if you think he was wrong I think you need something more than, in essence, "because I disagree with him."

The difference between Langford's opinion and fighters of today is that, with the latter, we, too, can see and evaluate those fighters. Just because they are fighters doesn't make them right. However, none of us have seen Dempsey and Wills except on some grainy old films. Langford saw them up close and live. (And so did Grantland Rice, who also picked Dempsey over Wills.)

Very fair point there.

@Ray

I suppose you have me, on the: "at least he saw them" angle. It's a valid point.

Il Duce wrote:

Giancarlo wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Next Up

#4 Rocky Marciano

I can hardly wait!

Let the nonsense continue!

'Are you still trolling, you Australian Midget Freak from the Northern Territory.'

I'm just keen to see what comical nonsense you will come up with, Duchess.

I don't expect post after post after post after post from your good self as the weekend is coming up and no doubt you will be busy with family and friends.

I mean, only a lonely shut-in friendless nutter would spend all his weekend posting shite on a boxing forum.

You aren't a lonely shut-in friendless nutter are you Duchess?

Like almost all boxing…Dempsey-Wills would have been a lot about when they fought. Earlier in their careers I’d pick Wills. When Dempsey won the title it was starting to swing in his favour. By the time Dempsey would/could have defended against Wills I’d expect Dempsey to win.

Is that the end of this thread?

As much as I love Marciano his career is the hardest to defend in my opinion.

Il Duce wrote:

Controversial wrote:As much as I love Marciano his career is the hardest to defend in my opinion.

Who else was he supposed to fight.

He had been fighting for 2-Years with back-spasm issues, he could go on no longer.

I didn't say he ducked anyone. He was just lucky to be in a division full of old guys and light heavyweights. He often gets credit for beating Louis yet Louis was a shadow of his former self and only fighting because he was broke. No way he goes undefeated if he fought in the 60s.

Il Duce wrote:

Controversial wrote:What's your definition of "greatest heavyweight champion"?

A 'Great Heavyweight Champion' not only wins, but totally dominates and devastates the competition.

A 'Take-No-Prisoners' type of 'Warrior'.

No games,,,,,,,,,,

One who had 'no' losses in his most important bouts, and when he was within the parameters of his 'prime'.

So, why Rocky Marciano is not the 1st one?

Where is Ali on your list? At least is he in your top 100?

One thing many of us agree upon..a good portion of your contributions do qualify you as being certifiable.