BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 May 2022, 15:48 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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:15 That is just twisted logic in holding the amount of fights that Langford had against him. It's like a politician spin.
The number is just so high that his opponents must have not been very good. Bizarre.

It's is relatively new that heavyweight prospects have fought such weak competition before getting a title shot. Yes you can exceptions if you go through history. But most of the time that isn't the case. It's really just in the last 20 years where it has been the norm.
Foreman had an easy? Obviously Chuck Wepner was obviously no legend, but there is no way that today someone would have fought him in their 4th fight. He fought Peralta with 8 months of experience. Fought him again later before he got a title shot. Beat George Chuvalo as well. Beat another prospect named Boone Kirkman.

Look at other guys that you mentioned:
Larry Holmes beat Roy Williams and Earnie Shavers before getting a shot.
Lennox Lewis beat Mason, Weaver, Biggs, and Ruddock before getting a shot.
Holyfield beat Tillis, Thomas, Dokes, and Stewart before getting a shot.

Yes they all fought some stiffs too. You pretty much have to fight some on your way up. But they each multiple fights against live opponents.
Some of these opponents were on the downhill of their career. Still fighting these guys is much more impressive than fighting only stiff after another while running a up 15-0 or 20-0 record and getting your shot..

Cap wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 13:24 Sam Langford lasted as long as he did because he didn't get hit anywhere near as often as the guys he hit. He was one of the cleverest boxers of his era, not just a huge puncher. He outboxed the great Joe Gans in one of his best performances. He was no fool. He slipped and blocked punches and stepped inside to avoid counters. He was like an eel___slippery! Most of the guys he fought were no where near his level as a boxer. Some were, but he was regarded by most experts and boxers of his day as something special.

Would he beat Vitali Klitschko? Not likely. Rangy guys like Fred Fulton gave him trouble because they could stand him off with a long jab and he had to really work to get inside close enough to land shots to the body. Styles make fights.

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:15 That is just twisted logic in holding the amount of fights that Langford had against him. It's like a politician spin.
The number is just so high that his opponents must have not been very good. Bizarre.

It's is relatively new that heavyweight prospects have fought such weak competition before getting a title shot. Yes you can exceptions if you go through history. But most of the time that isn't the case. It's really just in the last 20 years where it has been the norm.
Foreman had an easy? Obviously Chuck Wepner was obviously no legend, but there is no way that today someone would have fought him in their 4th fight. He fought Peralta with 8 months of experience. Fought him again later before he got a title shot. Beat George Chuvalo as well. Beat another prospect named Boone Kirkman.

Look at other guys that you mentioned:
Larry Holmes beat Roy Williams and Earnie Shavers before getting a shot.
Lennox Lewis beat Mason, Weaver, Biggs, and Ruddock before getting a shot.
Holyfield beat Tillis, Thomas, Dokes, and Stewart before getting a shot.

Yes they all fought some stiffs too. You pretty much have to fight some on your way up. But they each multiple fights against live opponents.
Some of these opponents were on the downhill of their career. Still fighting these guys is much more impressive than fighting only stiff after another while running a up 15-0 or 20-0 record and getting your shot..

It's not twisted logic at all. Too many fights just puts miles on the clock, for someone to have hundreds of fights and still be able to beat guys much bigger and heavier than them at HW says more about the opponent to me. I don't believe great fighters always need loads of fights to reach their best. Could Mike Tyson have beaten Berbick in his debut? Maybe. For all his experience and skill Canelo just lost comfortably to a 19-0 fighter. Some would argue Ali was a better fighter before his exile than after. I mentioned Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc to highlight the length of their careers when they retired. Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s. The best guys I mean, not your average journeyman. But Langford had hundreds of fights and was still in tip top condition? It doesn't add up just to say he was so great the normal laws of trauma don't affect Langford. We know it does because he fought for 5+ years blind in one eye and losing his sight in the other and even then he was still beating guys in his 40s. So I'm not questioning what he done I'm questioning how physically fit he was after say 80-100 fights and how good were his opponents in reality. After WW2 the fighters who were having hundreds of fights starting dwindling and since the 1960 onwards it hardly ever happens. Is that because fighters from the 1900-1950s weren't affected by long careers for some reason?

We could all see when guys like Ali, Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield were past it after having a fraction of the fights than Langford. But guys from 100+ years ago could just have fight after fight and it not affect them? And the reason for that is Langford was so great he was able to? Now thats twisted logic.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:15 That is just twisted logic in holding the amount of fights that Langford had against him. It's like a politician spin.
The number is just so high that his opponents must have not been very good. Bizarre.

It's is relatively new that heavyweight prospects have fought such weak competition before getting a title shot. Yes you can exceptions if you go through history. But most of the time that isn't the case. It's really just in the last 20 years where it has been the norm.
Foreman had an easy? Obviously Chuck Wepner was obviously no legend, but there is no way that today someone would have fought him in their 4th fight. He fought Peralta with 8 months of experience. Fought him again later before he got a title shot. Beat George Chuvalo as well. Beat another prospect named Boone Kirkman.

Look at other guys that you mentioned:
Larry Holmes beat Roy Williams and Earnie Shavers before getting a shot.
Lennox Lewis beat Mason, Weaver, Biggs, and Ruddock before getting a shot.
Holyfield beat Tillis, Thomas, Dokes, and Stewart before getting a shot.

Yes they all fought some stiffs too. You pretty much have to fight some on your way up. But they each multiple fights against live opponents.
Some of these opponents were on the downhill of their career. Still fighting these guys is much more impressive than fighting only stiff after another while running a up 15-0 or 20-0 record and getting your shot..

It's not twisted logic at all. Too many fights just puts miles on the clock, for someone to have hundreds of fights and still be able to beat guys much bigger and heavier than them at HW says more about the opponent to me. I don't believe great fighters always need loads of fights to reach their best. Could Mike Tyson have beaten Berbick in his debut? Maybe. For all his experience and skill Canelo just lost comfortably to a 19-0 fighter. Some would argue Ali was a better fighter before his exile than after. I mentioned Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc to highlight the length of their careers when they retired. Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s. The best guys I mean, not your average journeyman. But Langford had hundreds of fights and was still in tip top condition? It doesn't add up just to say he was so great the normal laws of trauma don't affect Langford. We know it does because he fought for 5+ years blind in one eye and losing his sight in the other and even then he was still beating guys in his 40s. So I'm not questioning what he done I'm questioning how physically fit he was after say 80-100 fights and how good were his opponents in reality. After WW2 the fighters who were having hundreds of fights starting dwindling and since the 1960 onwards it hardly ever happens. Is that because fighters from the 1900-1950s weren't affected by long careers for some reason?

We could all see when guys like Ali, Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield were past it after having a fraction of the fights than Langford. But guys from 100+ years ago could just have fight after fight and it not affect them? And the reason for that is Langford was so great he was able to? Now thats twisted logic.

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:15 That is just twisted logic in holding the amount of fights that Langford had against him. It's like a politician spin.
The number is just so high that his opponents must have not been very good. Bizarre.

It's is relatively new that heavyweight prospects have fought such weak competition before getting a title shot. Yes you can exceptions if you go through history. But most of the time that isn't the case. It's really just in the last 20 years where it has been the norm.
Foreman had an easy? Obviously Chuck Wepner was obviously no legend, but there is no way that today someone would have fought him in their 4th fight. He fought Peralta with 8 months of experience. Fought him again later before he got a title shot. Beat George Chuvalo as well. Beat another prospect named Boone Kirkman.

Look at other guys that you mentioned:
Larry Holmes beat Roy Williams and Earnie Shavers before getting a shot.
Lennox Lewis beat Mason, Weaver, Biggs, and Ruddock before getting a shot.
Holyfield beat Tillis, Thomas, Dokes, and Stewart before getting a shot.

Yes they all fought some stiffs too. You pretty much have to fight some on your way up. But they each multiple fights against live opponents.
Some of these opponents were on the downhill of their career. Still fighting these guys is much more impressive than fighting only stiff after another while running a up 15-0 or 20-0 record and getting your shot..

It's not twisted logic at all. Too many fights just puts miles on the clock, for someone to have hundreds of fights and still be able to beat guys much bigger and heavier than them at HW says more about the opponent to me. I don't believe great fighters always need loads of fights to reach their best. Could Mike Tyson have beaten Berbick in his debut? Maybe. For all his experience and skill Canelo just lost comfortably to a 19-0 fighter. Some would argue Ali was a better fighter before his exile than after. I mentioned Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc to highlight the length of their careers when they retired. Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s. The best guys I mean, not your average journeyman. But Langford had hundreds of fights and was still in tip top condition? It doesn't add up just to say he was so great the normal laws of trauma don't affect Langford. We know it does because he fought for 5+ years blind in one eye and losing his sight in the other and even then he was still beating guys in his 40s. So I'm not questioning what he done I'm questioning how physically fit he was after say 80-100 fights and how good were his opponents in reality. After WW2 the fighters who were having hundreds of fights starting dwindling and since the 1960 onwards it hardly ever happens. Is that because fighters from the 1900-1950s weren't affected by long careers for some reason?

We could all see when guys like Ali, Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield were past it after having a fraction of the fights than Langford. But guys from 100+ years ago could just have fight after fight and it not affect them? And the reason for that is Langford was so great he was able to? Now thats twisted logic.

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 19:28

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:50

It's not twisted logic at all. Too many fights just puts miles on the clock, for someone to have hundreds of fights and still be able to beat guys much bigger and heavier than them at HW says more about the opponent to me. I don't believe great fighters always need loads of fights to reach their best. Could Mike Tyson have beaten Berbick in his debut? Maybe. For all his experience and skill Canelo just lost comfortably to a 19-0 fighter. Some would argue Ali was a better fighter before his exile than after. I mentioned Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc to highlight the length of their careers when they retired. Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s. The best guys I mean, not your average journeyman. But Langford had hundreds of fights and was still in tip top condition? It doesn't add up just to say he was so great the normal laws of trauma don't affect Langford. We know it does because he fought for 5+ years blind in one eye and losing his sight in the other and even then he was still beating guys in his 40s. So I'm not questioning what he done I'm questioning how physically fit he was after say 80-100 fights and how good were his opponents in reality. After WW2 the fighters who were having hundreds of fights starting dwindling and since the 1960 onwards it hardly ever happens. Is that because fighters from the 1900-1950s weren't affected by long careers for some reason?

We could all see when guys like Ali, Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield were past it after having a fraction of the fights than Langford. But guys from 100+ years ago could just have fight after fight and it not affect them? And the reason for that is Langford was so great he was able to? Now thats twisted logic.

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

Everyone who actually fought him was left in awe of his power. That’s very rare. Comparing Canelo who couldnt stop Matty Hatton is ludicrous. Since we haven’t seen him live it’s all just opinions but Langfords top 3 at worst Canelo would not make it into my top 100.

Controversial wrote: ↑20 May 2022, 05:35

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 19:28

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

Everyone who actually fought him was left in awe of his power. That’s very rare. Comparing Canelo who couldnt stop Matty Hatton is ludicrous. Since we haven’t seen him live it’s all just opinions but Langfords top 3 at worst Canelo would not make it into my top 100.

I mentioned Canelo only because he is rated as one of the best fighters around today plus there are some similarities in that Canelo is moving through the divisions like Langford did. Also Canelo has had more fights than most top fighters today, maybe the most today. But swap Canelo for RJJ, SRL, Pacquiao, Duran or anyone else. The top fighters just can't have hundreds of fights anymore, most struggle to have more than 50 before they are past their best. So why could Langford do it but no other ATG can do that and fight at HW too? I don't swallow the argument it was because he was so good. More likely is HWs have improved post WW2 and it became harder and harder for little guys to have success like they did 100+ years ago. And its highly likely many of the guys they beat back in those times just weren't very good, fighting was all they can do to feed themselves.

Billy Tully wrote: ↑20 May 2022, 09:11

Controversial wrote: ↑20 May 2022, 05:35

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 19:28

Everyone who actually fought him was left in awe of his power. That’s very rare. Comparing Canelo who couldnt stop Matty Hatton is ludicrous. Since we haven’t seen him live it’s all just opinions but Langfords top 3 at worst Canelo would not make it into my top 100.

I mentioned Canelo only because he is rated as one of the best fighters around today plus there are some similarities in that Canelo is moving through the divisions like Langford did. Also Canelo has had more fights than most top fighters today, maybe the most today. But swap Canelo for RJJ, SRL, Pacquiao, Duran or anyone else. The top fighters just can't have hundreds of fights anymore, most struggle to have more than 50 before they are past their best. So why could Langford do it but no other ATG can do that and fight at HW too? I don't swallow the argument it was because he was so good. More likely is HWs have improved post WW2 and it became harder and harder for little guys to have success like they did 100+ years ago. And its highly likely many of the guys they beat back in those times just weren't very good, fighting was all they can do to feed themselves.

Do you not think that might be because fighters today fight by comparison so sporadically and 50 fights takes them over 10, 12 years, whereas fighters of yore fighting every month, often every week, can rack up those numbers while still in their prime?

Boggles my mind that the modern fight fan can't see that record building is at the forefront of manager's minds now, and that the bulk of the modern fighters' bouts are relatively easy assignments against cans.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:15 That is just twisted logic in holding the amount of fights that Langford had against him. It's like a politician spin.
The number is just so high that his opponents must have not been very good. Bizarre.

It's is relatively new that heavyweight prospects have fought such weak competition before getting a title shot. Yes you can exceptions if you go through history. But most of the time that isn't the case. It's really just in the last 20 years where it has been the norm.
Foreman had an easy? Obviously Chuck Wepner was obviously no legend, but there is no way that today someone would have fought him in their 4th fight. He fought Peralta with 8 months of experience. Fought him again later before he got a title shot. Beat George Chuvalo as well. Beat another prospect named Boone Kirkman.

Look at other guys that you mentioned:
Larry Holmes beat Roy Williams and Earnie Shavers before getting a shot.
Lennox Lewis beat Mason, Weaver, Biggs, and Ruddock before getting a shot.
Holyfield beat Tillis, Thomas, Dokes, and Stewart before getting a shot.

Yes they all fought some stiffs too. You pretty much have to fight some on your way up. But they each multiple fights against live opponents.
Some of these opponents were on the downhill of their career. Still fighting these guys is much more impressive than fighting only stiff after another while running a up 15-0 or 20-0 record and getting your shot..

It's not twisted logic at all. Too many fights just puts miles on the clock, for someone to have hundreds of fights and still be able to beat guys much bigger and heavier than them at HW says more about the opponent to me. I don't believe great fighters always need loads of fights to reach their best. Could Mike Tyson have beaten Berbick in his debut? Maybe. For all his experience and skill Canelo just lost comfortably to a 19-0 fighter. Some would argue Ali was a better fighter before his exile than after. I mentioned Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc to highlight the length of their careers when they retired. Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s. The best guys I mean, not your average journeyman. But Langford had hundreds of fights and was still in tip top condition? It doesn't add up just to say he was so great the normal laws of trauma don't affect Langford. We know it does because he fought for 5+ years blind in one eye and losing his sight in the other and even then he was still beating guys in his 40s. So I'm not questioning what he done I'm questioning how physically fit he was after say 80-100 fights and how good were his opponents in reality. After WW2 the fighters who were having hundreds of fights starting dwindling and since the 1960 onwards it hardly ever happens. Is that because fighters from the 1900-1950s weren't affected by long careers for some reason?

We could all see when guys like Ali, Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield were past it after having a fraction of the fights than Langford. But guys from 100+ years ago could just have fight after fight and it not affect them? And the reason for that is Langford was so great he was able to? Now thats twisted logic.

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 May 2022, 11:45 No, 290 combat fights don't impress me. I don't care about kickboxing. Can't believe that you do. It's a different sport. Irrelevant.
Don't care if he turned pro at a late age. That was his decision.
Not impressed by his style and footwork. Honestly let me know if you are joking about this.
Yes he and his steroid taking enabled him to have big size and a long career of beating one mediocre fighter after another in unimpressive performances. Don't care.

I am impressed by things like good hand speed, fast on their feet, has a high work rate, power, accurate is hard to hit, were tough. None of which he had.
Not impressed by a guy who doesn't beat really good opponents.
Not impressed by someone quitting. Not impressed with him against that version of Lewis, who was ripe to be taken. A good defensive fight would nave been busted up that against a very slow Lewis. A hard puncher would have taken him out.

0-2 in his only real tests. 0-2. Couldn't go the distance in either.

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 18:16

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 11:50

It's not twisted logic at all. Too many fights just puts miles on the clock, for someone to have hundreds of fights and still be able to beat guys much bigger and heavier than them at HW says more about the opponent to me. I don't believe great fighters always need loads of fights to reach their best. Could Mike Tyson have beaten Berbick in his debut? Maybe. For all his experience and skill Canelo just lost comfortably to a 19-0 fighter. Some would argue Ali was a better fighter before his exile than after. I mentioned Ali, Holmes, Lewis etc to highlight the length of their careers when they retired. Quite often they have between 30-50 fights or start sliding in their mid 30s. The best guys I mean, not your average journeyman. But Langford had hundreds of fights and was still in tip top condition? It doesn't add up just to say he was so great the normal laws of trauma don't affect Langford. We know it does because he fought for 5+ years blind in one eye and losing his sight in the other and even then he was still beating guys in his 40s. So I'm not questioning what he done I'm questioning how physically fit he was after say 80-100 fights and how good were his opponents in reality. After WW2 the fighters who were having hundreds of fights starting dwindling and since the 1960 onwards it hardly ever happens. Is that because fighters from the 1900-1950s weren't affected by long careers for some reason?

We could all see when guys like Ali, Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield were past it after having a fraction of the fights than Langford. But guys from 100+ years ago could just have fight after fight and it not affect them? And the reason for that is Langford was so great he was able to? Now thats twisted logic.

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

SRR had over 100 fights less than Langford and he wasn't competing against HWs. Can you imagine SRR trying to box HWs? The heaviest guy SRR fought was the 173 pound Maxim in 1952 and he lost. This is SRR too, arguably the greatest fighter ever to live. I'm not saying fighters don't need tough fights, of course they do but even then you can't prepare for fighters you've never boxed, no matter how many tough fights you have. Anyone who fought Tyson was fighting someone skilled in a way they couldn't prepare for. Same with guys who fought Ali or Fury or anyone else with specific skillsets. Mentioning Canelo again, very skilled, very experienced yet looked very ordinary against a 19-0 fighter. I just don't see how Langford was still able to be competitive with HWs so long into his career when he wasn't built for that division. How was it possible for guys to do that 100+ years ago but never since? Can you see Canelo doing that or anyone else for that matter? Its no coincidence you don't get huge disparities in weights anymore, fighters just wouldn't be able to give away extreme weight against decent fighters.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 15:56 So does football or tons of other sports.
Guess the toughness part didn't help him against Byrd. He sure was agile though, wasn't he? Now we also have excuses for why he got disqualified from the Olympics. Great information, relevant we are getting here.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 16:10

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 18:16

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 16:20

To answer your points:
Fighters don't need 300 fights to reach their talent. But they they need to have some tough fights on their way up. That is almost unheard of now. They need to fight tough opponents after they win a title. That is rarely done any more. Used to be routine to see two top 10 guys fight each with no title at stake. That rarely happens now. You get better at sports by going against better and better competition.

Some would say Ali was better before his exile than after? Of course he was much better before the exile. He was maybe 80% of what he had been prior. He didn't anywhere near the speed and reflexes that he once had. But Ali already had defeated several good opponents by the time he was banned. He fought good opponents on his way up as well.

Again, I am not saying that he didn't decline as he got older and had more fights. As I said before, of course he did. He gradually went from arguably the greatest fighter of all time to great, to very good to just good at the very end.

As for guys fighting a ton of fights:
Look at Ray Robinson. He fought about 200 fights. Finally retired for good in his mid 40s.
Almost of what is available on film was when was already past i his best. But look how good he still looked in those fights in the 1950s. Basically the same thing happened to Robinson as Langford. Over time, he went from arguably the greatest of all time,, to just great in the early to mid-1950s. Very good in late 1950s. Just good at the very end in the 1965.
Did Robinson not fight great competition?

I am not saying that Langford (or else ) should get credit for the sheer number of wins. Stats can be very deceiving in boxing. When rating him as a heavyweight don't factor his fights against fights against welterweights and middleweights, or against a heavyweight that is as tiff for that matter. But just look at how he did against quality heavyweights in his time. He won the series against McVey. Against Jeannette. Did well against Wills until he started to fade. etc.

SRR had over 100 fights less than Langford and he wasn't competing against HWs. Can you imagine SRR trying to box HWs? The heaviest guy SRR fought was the 173 pound Maxim in 1952 and he lost. This is SRR too, arguably the greatest fighter ever to live. I'm not saying fighters don't need tough fights, of course they do but even then you can't prepare for fighters you've never boxed, no matter how many tough fights you have. Anyone who fought Tyson was fighting someone skilled in a way they couldn't prepare for. Same with guys who fought Ali or Fury or anyone else with specific skillsets. Mentioning Canelo again, very skilled, very experienced yet looked very ordinary against a 19-0 fighter. I just don't see how Langford was still able to be competitive with HWs so long into his career when he wasn't built for that division. How was it possible for guys to do that 100+ years ago but never since? Can you see Canelo doing that or anyone else for that matter? Its no coincidence you don't get huge disparities in weights anymore, fighters just wouldn't be able to give away extreme weight against decent fighters.

So 200 fights you can buy, but not 300? Glad you are drawing the line somewhere.
Robinson was not naturally nearly as heavy as Langford. Langford naturally was more than 30 pounds bigger.
Robinson beat great middleweights when he was naturally a welterweight. He almost beat a Hall of fame light heavyweight. Not that much of stretch to think Langford could beat great heavyweights. We know Jeannette, McVey and Wills were great. And we know Langford beat them. Silly to say that they can't be great because Langford had a lot of fights. It might be hard for you fathom. You can't see it. But it happened.

pound per pound wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 16:14

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 15:56 So does football or tons of other sports.
Guess the toughness part didn't help him against Byrd. He sure was agile though, wasn't he? Now we also have excuses for why he got disqualified from the Olympics. Great information, relevant we are getting here.

You're right. Lot of guys quit as I showed you. Sugar Ray Robinson or Duran for example. Yeah he lost via a fluke shoulder tear to Byrd. Never got a re-match! Like the one Ali got after he lost to Frazer and Norton, and the one Joe Louis got after losing to Scheming or the ones Lennox Lewis got after getting KO'd by McCall and Rhaman. Suddenly this loss to Byrd doesn't seem to bad, does it? In fact I do something I've never donee and speak for you. This was a fluke result and Vitali Klitschko would WIN the re-match. Let me know if your disagree, okay?

Seamus wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 19:40 Football and other sports obviously would not help a boxer as much as combat ones like Muay Thai and Kick Boxing where striking is involved.

Controversial wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 07:02

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 16:10

Controversial wrote: ↑19 May 2022, 18:16

SRR had over 100 fights less than Langford and he wasn't competing against HWs. Can you imagine SRR trying to box HWs? The heaviest guy SRR fought was the 173 pound Maxim in 1952 and he lost. This is SRR too, arguably the greatest fighter ever to live. I'm not saying fighters don't need tough fights, of course they do but even then you can't prepare for fighters you've never boxed, no matter how many tough fights you have. Anyone who fought Tyson was fighting someone skilled in a way they couldn't prepare for. Same with guys who fought Ali or Fury or anyone else with specific skillsets. Mentioning Canelo again, very skilled, very experienced yet looked very ordinary against a 19-0 fighter. I just don't see how Langford was still able to be competitive with HWs so long into his career when he wasn't built for that division. How was it possible for guys to do that 100+ years ago but never since? Can you see Canelo doing that or anyone else for that matter? Its no coincidence you don't get huge disparities in weights anymore, fighters just wouldn't be able to give away extreme weight against decent fighters.

So 200 fights you can buy, but not 300? Glad you are drawing the line somewhere.
Robinson was not naturally nearly as heavy as Langford. Langford naturally was more than 30 pounds bigger.
Robinson beat great middleweights when he was naturally a welterweight. He almost beat a Hall of fame light heavyweight. Not that much of stretch to think Langford could beat great heavyweights. We know Jeannette, McVey and Wills were great. And we know Langford beat them. Silly to say that they can't be great because Langford had a lot of fights. It might be hard for you fathom. You can't see it. But it happened.

I didn't draw the line anywhere. I said most top HWs are done at a world level between 30-50 fights (35-55 fights maybe more accurate), thats based on the records of ATG HWs. Always exceptions of course but not normally loads more. An extra 100+ pro fights more than SRR is immense, that alone is more fights than most fighters have in their entire career!! A lot of people think SRR started to decline in 1952 which was 13 years before he finally quit. Others think he was on the slide before this so you could say after around 130 fights SRR began to decline. And this was SRR who had money to train and prepare properly. Langford fought Wills the first time in 1914 and Langford had already had over 150 fights (including newspaper decisions). But more telling is SRR wasn't fighting HWs which is far harder and damaging for a small guy to do. Or even fighting LHWs, SRR fought one LHW and lost. So why could Langford beat the best HWs after an already very long career? And why since the 1960s onwards can't the top fighters do that anymore? I think the reason is pre WW2, especially around the turn of the century, boxing was just very different to what it is now. Guys back then would fight all the time, with injuries, unprepared, last minute, out of weight class etc mainly because they needed money. The more serious the sport was taken the harder it got and from the 60s onwards HWs started to get bigger and more skilled. So just because someone in the early 1900s was beating HWs it doesn't mean they could in other eras. If little guys could then, then why can't they do it now?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 12:00

Controversial wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 07:02

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑22 May 2022, 16:10
So 200 fights you can buy, but not 300? Glad you are drawing the line somewhere.
Robinson was not naturally nearly as heavy as Langford. Langford naturally was more than 30 pounds bigger.
Robinson beat great middleweights when he was naturally a welterweight. He almost beat a Hall of fame light heavyweight. Not that much of stretch to think Langford could beat great heavyweights. We know Jeannette, McVey and Wills were great. And we know Langford beat them. Silly to say that they can't be great because Langford had a lot of fights. It might be hard for you fathom. You can't see it. But it happened.

I didn't draw the line anywhere. I said most top HWs are done at a world level between 30-50 fights (35-55 fights maybe more accurate), thats based on the records of ATG HWs. Always exceptions of course but not normally loads more. An extra 100+ pro fights more than SRR is immense, that alone is more fights than most fighters have in their entire career!! A lot of people think SRR started to decline in 1952 which was 13 years before he finally quit. Others think he was on the slide before this so you could say after around 130 fights SRR began to decline. And this was SRR who had money to train and prepare properly. Langford fought Wills the first time in 1914 and Langford had already had over 150 fights (including newspaper decisions). But more telling is SRR wasn't fighting HWs which is far harder and damaging for a small guy to do. Or even fighting LHWs, SRR fought one LHW and lost. So why could Langford beat the best HWs after an already very long career? And why since the 1960s onwards can't the top fighters do that anymore? I think the reason is pre WW2, especially around the turn of the century, boxing was just very different to what it is now. Guys back then would fight all the time, with injuries, unprepared, last minute, out of weight class etc mainly because they needed money. The more serious the sport was taken the harder it got and from the 60s onwards HWs started to get bigger and more skilled. So just because someone in the early 1900s was beating HWs it doesn't mean they could in other eras. If little guys could then, then why can't they do it now?

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.

Controversial wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 16:05

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 12:00

Controversial wrote: ↑23 May 2022, 07:02

I didn't draw the line anywhere. I said most top HWs are done at a world level between 30-50 fights (35-55 fights maybe more accurate), thats based on the records of ATG HWs. Always exceptions of course but not normally loads more. An extra 100+ pro fights more than SRR is immense, that alone is more fights than most fighters have in their entire career!! A lot of people think SRR started to decline in 1952 which was 13 years before he finally quit. Others think he was on the slide before this so you could say after around 130 fights SRR began to decline. And this was SRR who had money to train and prepare properly. Langford fought Wills the first time in 1914 and Langford had already had over 150 fights (including newspaper decisions). But more telling is SRR wasn't fighting HWs which is far harder and damaging for a small guy to do. Or even fighting LHWs, SRR fought one LHW and lost. So why could Langford beat the best HWs after an already very long career? And why since the 1960s onwards can't the top fighters do that anymore? I think the reason is pre WW2, especially around the turn of the century, boxing was just very different to what it is now. Guys back then would fight all the time, with injuries, unprepared, last minute, out of weight class etc mainly because they needed money. The more serious the sport was taken the harder it got and from the 60s onwards HWs started to get bigger and more skilled. So just because someone in the early 1900s was beating HWs it doesn't mean they could in other eras. If little guys could then, then why can't they do it now?

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?