BoxRec

Decagon wrote:

MEISINGER wrote:

Decagon wrote:I've never heard anyone say that Langford was at his prime ni 1906. He was around 150 pounds, and so was Thompkins.

langford lost by ko to young peter jackson at the time that sam had a record of 35-6-10
langford had already dad 51 pro fights(documented probably more)
and was 23 years old.
he was no novice entering this bought.

he would not have the whiskers to hold up to a 250 pound power house

Thompkins = Young Peter Jackson. Anyway, that was long before his prime at heavyweight.

decagon face it if a 147 pound fighter reguardless prime or before
can knock him out.then a fighter who has the highest % of heavyweight knockouts for a champion has more than a chance.

no one is arguing that sam was way more talented.even though we are
basing this on only newspaper articles and second hand info since quality footage is non existant on langford.
my argument is vitali who i find very flawed as a fighter is too big and too strong for langford.

barry wrote:I'll take Langford by KO in 7...Vitali could not fight past four, or five rounds and he didn't have the power to hurt Langford enough to get him out early. Langford chops him down like a tree and either knocks him out, or Vitali quits.

What a bunch of BS. Vitlai's punch out put was amazing. Check the punch stats sometime, and keep in mind Vitali had enough left to score several late round TKO's vs hard to stop fighters such as Donald, Bean, and Purrity.

Some of these old time historians kill me with their double standards. I want to start by saying that Langford was an extremely gutsy and durable fighter. Having said that, Barry is you aware Langford once quit on a cut? We all saw how much guts Vitlai had when he was cut.

I have three Langford fights on film, and some training clips. While the film quality isn’t great, I can describe Langford style. The fights are vs Flynn, Lang, and Hauge. Langford has a poor defense on the outside. His guard is low. He's open to jabs, and shows little head movement. On film, Sam did not mind to get hit, but these guys don’t hit as hard as Vitali does. Up close, Langford is a demon. His hook was deadly, and he really likes to let his hands go up close to the head or body. Decent hand speed too.

I’m sure we have all seen Fireman Flynn before on films. Sam drew with him in 10, and took 8 rounds to finish him. I’d bet any asset I own that Vitlai would never draw with a journeyman like Flynn. Vitali beats Flynn for sure likely would not need 8 rounds to stop him.

If this is a pound for pound discussion, it’s Langford all the way. However this is a heavyweight match up. 6’8” 80” reach, and 250 pounds – VS - 5’7” 74” reach, and 175 pounds. Oh—and give Vitali those lighter gloves that Langford used to magnify his power too.

Let’s get real here, Langford is a legend, but boxing has different weight classes for a reason. Sam would be badly outclassed on the outside, totally owned in the clinches by giving up about 75 pounds, and would have to near jump to hit Vitlai on the chin with his hook. Vitlai has an excellent chin, so Langford’s “ puncher’s chance “ is greatly diminished. If a boxing match breaks out, Sam is not going to win, In truth, Vitlai has the best ratio of rounds lost to rounds won in the history of heavyweight boxing. Even better than Ali or Holmes. The most rounds Vitali ever lost was 2 or 3 in a fight. Langford in his prime drew with non eliete level fighters like Flynn, Ferguson, Bell, Jim Johnson, ect...

Vitali wins this fight.

pound per pound wrote:

barry wrote:I'll take Langford by KO in 7...Vitali could not fight past four, or five rounds and he didn't have the power to hurt Langford enough to get him out early. Langford chops him down like a tree and either knocks him out, or Vitali quits.

What a bunch of BS. Vitlai's punch out put was amazing. Check the punch stats sometime, and keep in mind Vitali had enough left to score several late round TKO's vs hard to stop fighters such as Donald, Bean, and Purrity.

Some of these old time historians kill me with their double standards. I want to start by saying that Langford was an extremely gutsy and durable fighter. Having said that, Barry is you aware Langford once quit on a cut? We all saw how much guts Vitlai had when he was cut.

I have three Langford fights on film, and some training clips. While the film quality isn’t great, I can describe Langford style. The fights are vs Flynn, Lang, and Hauge. Langford has a poor defense on the outside. His guard is low. He's open to jabs, and shows little head movement. On film, Sam did not mind to get hit, but these guys don’t hit as hard as Vitali does. Up close, Langford is a demon. His hook was deadly, and he really likes to let his hands go up close to the head or body. Decent hand speed too.

I’m sure we have all seen Fireman Flynn before on films. Sam drew with him in 10, and took 8 rounds to finish him. I’d bet any asset I own that Vitlai would never draw with a journeyman like Flynn. Vitali beats Flynn for sure likely would not need 8 rounds to stop him.

If this is a pound for pound discussion, it’s Langford all the way. However this is a heavyweight match up. 6’8” 80” reach, and 250 pounds – VS - 5’7” 74” reach, and 175 pounds. Oh—and give Vitali those lighter gloves that Langford used to magnify his power too.

Let’s get real here, Langford is a legend, but boxing has different weight classes for a reason. Sam would be badly outclassed on the outside, totally owned in the clinches by giving up about 75 pounds, and would have to near jump to hit Vitlai on the chin with his hook. Vitlai has an excellent chin, so Langford’s “ puncher’s chance “ is greatly diminished. If a boxing match breaks out, Sam is not going to win, In truth, Vitlai has the best ratio of rounds lost to rounds won in the history of heavyweight boxing. Even better than Ali or Holmes. The most rounds Vitali ever lost was 2 or 3 in a fight. Langford in his prime drew with non eliete level fighters like Flynn, Ferguson, Bell, Jim Johnson, ect...

Vitali wins this fight.

He "quit" after getting thumbed which damaged his eye permanently.

Big Bill Tate was about the size of Vitali (and faster) and Langford flattened him. You talk about some draws Langford accrued over a span of HUNDREDS of fights. Britalli, in an era of much more advanced medicine, can't even make it to 40 professional fights. His two biggest fights he lost to injury. In the 19teens Vitali would be on crutches.

Lighter gloves? Vitali routinely hurt his hands in 10 ounce gloves. In Langford's time he'd be known as having "big Floyd Maywheather" hands.

I don't really care about Vitali's "win-loss" ratio in terms of rounds (and he lost a good deal more than 3) . . the fact is his biggest win is over a 260 lb Kirk Johnson.

dempseyfire wrote:

pound per pound wrote:

barry wrote:I'll take Langford by KO in 7...Vitali could not fight past four, or five rounds and he didn't have the power to hurt Langford enough to get him out early. Langford chops him down like a tree and either knocks him out, or Vitali quits.

What a bunch of BS. Vitlai's punch out put was amazing. Check the punch stats sometime, and keep in mind Vitali had enough left to score several late round TKO's vs hard to stop fighters such as Donald, Bean, and Purrity.

Some of these old time historians kill me with their double standards. I want to start by saying that Langford was an extremely gutsy and durable fighter. Having said that, Barry is you aware Langford once quit on a cut? We all saw how much guts Vitlai had when he was cut.

I have three Langford fights on film, and some training clips. While the film quality isn’t great, I can describe Langford style. The fights are vs Flynn, Lang, and Hauge. Langford has a poor defense on the outside. His guard is low. He's open to jabs, and shows little head movement. On film, Sam did not mind to get hit, but these guys don’t hit as hard as Vitali does. Up close, Langford is a demon. His hook was deadly, and he really likes to let his hands go up close to the head or body. Decent hand speed too.

I’m sure we have all seen Fireman Flynn before on films. Sam drew with him in 10, and took 8 rounds to finish him. I’d bet any asset I own that Vitlai would never draw with a journeyman like Flynn. Vitali beats Flynn for sure likely would not need 8 rounds to stop him.

If this is a pound for pound discussion, it’s Langford all the way. However this is a heavyweight match up. 6’8” 80” reach, and 250 pounds – VS - 5’7” 74” reach, and 175 pounds. Oh—and give Vitali those lighter gloves that Langford used to magnify his power too.

Let’s get real here, Langford is a legend, but boxing has different weight classes for a reason. Sam would be badly outclassed on the outside, totally owned in the clinches by giving up about 75 pounds, and would have to near jump to hit Vitlai on the chin with his hook. Vitlai has an excellent chin, so Langford’s “ puncher’s chance “ is greatly diminished. If a boxing match breaks out, Sam is not going to win, In truth, Vitlai has the best ratio of rounds lost to rounds won in the history of heavyweight boxing. Even better than Ali or Holmes. The most rounds Vitali ever lost was 2 or 3 in a fight. Langford in his prime drew with non eliete level fighters like Flynn, Ferguson, Bell, Jim Johnson, ect...

Vitali wins this fight.

He "quit" after getting thumbed which damaged his eye permanently.

Big Bill Tate was about the size of Vitali (and faster) and Langford flattened him. You talk about some draws Langford accrued over a span of HUNDREDS of fights. Britalli, in an era of much more advanced medicine, can't even make it to 40 professional fights. His two biggest fights he lost to injury. In the 19teens Vitali would be on crutches.

Lighter gloves? Vitali routinely hurt his hands in 10 ounce gloves. In Langford's time he'd be known as having "big Floyd Maywheather" hands.

I don't really care about Vitali's "win-loss" ratio in terms of rounds (and he lost a good deal more than 3) . . the fact is his biggest win is over a 260 lb Kirk Johnson.

Um, Langford quit in two fights from cuts. The Young Peter Jackson match, and the Fred Fulton match. This is TWO fights. So he really quit twice. Which one are you talking about here?

Bill Bill Tate was best known as a sparring partner. I see you don't want to tocuh my point in Langford taking journeyman the distance with a 10' pole. If Vitali did this, you'd have a field day. Get real, Vitlai never stopped punching from sore hands. Match him vs 175 pounders with 6oz gloves its O-V-E-R quickly.

Oh, and who says Vitlai only had 40 fights? Only you. Vitali had 190 amatuer matches vs heavyweights, 40+ kick boxing matches ( which are more brutal than boxing matches ), and 37 pro boxing matches. This is 267+ combat matches that Vitlai was in. You would be hard pressed to show me heavyweight fighters who had more. Just a few. That's it. After 200 fights, body parts begin to break down.

Big Bill Tate was about the size of Vitali (and faster) and Langford flattened him.

ALOT of guys flattened Tate. He lost almost as much as he won.

pound per pound wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

pound per pound wrote: What a bunch of BS. Vitlai's punch out put was amazing. Check the punch stats sometime, and keep in mind Vitali had enough left to score several late round TKO's vs hard to stop fighters such as Donald, Bean, and Purrity.

Some of these old time historians kill me with their double standards. I want to start by saying that Langford was an extremely gutsy and durable fighter. Having said that, Barry is you aware Langford once quit on a cut? We all saw how much guts Vitlai had when he was cut.

I have three Langford fights on film, and some training clips. While the film quality isn’t great, I can describe Langford style. The fights are vs Flynn, Lang, and Hauge. Langford has a poor defense on the outside. His guard is low. He's open to jabs, and shows little head movement. On film, Sam did not mind to get hit, but these guys don’t hit as hard as Vitali does. Up close, Langford is a demon. His hook was deadly, and he really likes to let his hands go up close to the head or body. Decent hand speed too.

I’m sure we have all seen Fireman Flynn before on films. Sam drew with him in 10, and took 8 rounds to finish him. I’d bet any asset I own that Vitlai would never draw with a journeyman like Flynn. Vitali beats Flynn for sure likely would not need 8 rounds to stop him.

If this is a pound for pound discussion, it’s Langford all the way. However this is a heavyweight match up. 6’8” 80” reach, and 250 pounds – VS - 5’7” 74” reach, and 175 pounds. Oh—and give Vitali those lighter gloves that Langford used to magnify his power too.

Let’s get real here, Langford is a legend, but boxing has different weight classes for a reason. Sam would be badly outclassed on the outside, totally owned in the clinches by giving up about 75 pounds, and would have to near jump to hit Vitlai on the chin with his hook. Vitlai has an excellent chin, so Langford’s “ puncher’s chance “ is greatly diminished. If a boxing match breaks out, Sam is not going to win, In truth, Vitlai has the best ratio of rounds lost to rounds won in the history of heavyweight boxing. Even better than Ali or Holmes. The most rounds Vitali ever lost was 2 or 3 in a fight. Langford in his prime drew with non eliete level fighters like Flynn, Ferguson, Bell, Jim Johnson, ect...

Vitali wins this fight.

He "quit" after getting thumbed which damaged his eye permanently.

Big Bill Tate was about the size of Vitali (and faster) and Langford flattened him. You talk about some draws Langford accrued over a span of HUNDREDS of fights. Britalli, in an era of much more advanced medicine, can't even make it to 40 professional fights. His two biggest fights he lost to injury. In the 19teens Vitali would be on crutches.

Lighter gloves? Vitali routinely hurt his hands in 10 ounce gloves. In Langford's time he'd be known as having "big Floyd Maywheather" hands.

I don't really care about Vitali's "win-loss" ratio in terms of rounds (and he lost a good deal more than 3) . . the fact is his biggest win is over a 260 lb Kirk Johnson.

Um, Langford quit in two fights from cuts. The Young Peter Jackson match, and the Fred Fulton match. This is TWO fights. So he really quit twice. Which one are you talking about here?

Bill Bill Tate was best known as a sparring partner. I see you don't want to tocuh my point in Langford taking journeyman the distance with a 10' pole. If Vitali did this, you'd have a field day. Get real, Vitlai never stopped punching from sore hands. Match him vs 175 pounders with 6oz gloves its O-V-E-R quickly.

Oh, and who says Vitlai only had 40 fights? Only you. Vitali had 190 amatuer matches vs heavyweights, 40+ kick boxing matches ( which are more brutal than boxing matches ), and 37 pro boxing matches. This is 267+ combat matches that Vitlai was in. You would be hard pressed to show me heavyweight fighters who had more. Just a few. That's it. After 200 fights, body parts begin to break down.

That's 37 professional boxing matches you goof. How long do kick-boxing fights last? The kick-boxing Vitali fought was definetely not nearly as brutal as professional boxing at the turn of the century. And who cares how many amateur fights Klitschko had . . Dominik Guinn had over 300 amateur fights . . .I don't see him pulling out of and losing all of his big fights due to injury.


The Fulton fight was stopped due to an EXTREMELY serious eye injury that Langford suffered. In modern times he'd have been forced to retire from boxing after that fight, as he was legally blind. To compare that stoppage to Vitali quitting due to an injured shoulder in a major title fight is outrageous. And Langford, while blind, was knocking out big 220 lb HWs!! And even at almost 40 years of age, Sam went the distance with a prime Harry Willis and knocked out all time Light HW Tiger Flowers.

And I did address your point about Langford going the distance with lesser fighters. That happens when you fight not only every month, but in many cases SEVERAL TIMES in a month. Britalli was content fighting twice a year, vs mostly C-grade competition (when he could make it through a training camp). The only times he fought 3 times a year or more was when he was fighting the likes of Ricardo Kennedy and Ismael Youla. And the two times he fought true world-class fighters (Byrd and Lewis) he LOST!!! You could bring out your don't-mean-anything stats about KO ratios till the cows come down, but you can't reverse that!!!

Vitali by clear decision or late stoppage

I'm with PPP in this one.

This is not like asking... "Who would win, Joe Louis, or Lyakovich?" Like some of you are making it out to be.

It's more like... "Who would win, Tommy Burns, or Riddick Bowe?" Anyone who says Tommy Burns is a jackass.

I understand the respect for a great champ like Langford, but you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses a bit here.

Tantum wrote:I'm with PPP in this one.

This is not like asking... "Who would win, Joe Louis, or Lyakovich?" Like some of you are making it out to be.

It's more like... "Who would win, Tommy Burns, or Riddick Bowe?" Anyone who says Tommy Burns is a jackass.

I understand the respect for a great champ like Langford, but you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses a bit here.

Well said. I betcha guys like Dempseyfire think Burns would defeat Bowe.

I really think Klitschko would be too big for Langford, and probably any LHW in history. P4P Langford is far superior, but head to head Klitschko wins by stoppage in 6 or 7 imo.
Although Vit quit against Byrd, he didnt seem to be chinny - he took Lewis' best punches well.

The fight most likely would never happen because Vitali would post-pone it so many times due to training injuries that Langford could go through a career and retire before Vitali was ready to fight!!!

Vitali was one of the weakest "belt" holders in history who quit when the going got tough!

PPP, I'd suggest that maybe you speak a bit with someone like Clay Moyle about Langford.

As to his losses to Jackson and Fulton. Well, I do not recall that he quit against Jackson, though I do have newspaper clippings of the fight, so I will check it out and see and against Fulton…well it wasn’t that his eyes were just cut, both of his eyes were shut tight and he would be hospitalized afterwards...not to mention that he was nearly blind by this point and he was taking a very vicious beating!

It’s a much bigger difference for a fighter to quit when he is way, way, way past his prime and taking a severe beating compared to a fighter quitting with only two rounds to go in a bout that he is winning by a large margin against a very light-hitting opponent and at that time the fighter is at his absolute prime!

No matter how much you might try to paint an ugly picture of Langford you will never be able to make Vitali look like a fighter who had heart!

And speaking of fighting with a cut eye...well...after talking with a couple of ex-champions and a few other former top ranked boxers they all were in agreement that fighting with a very bad cut is really nothing that takes any heart as a fighter doesn't actually know how bad a cut is until he sees it in a mirror after a fight, but as far as having to dig down deep and find a big heart, a bad cut does not hurt much at all and as such does not really require heart, so in the Lewis bout Vitali simply did not demonstrate any extraordinary heart.

He showed what kind of heart he had in his only bout that actually required him to show heart...he quit against one of the lightest-hitting fighters of all-time, not to mention a very small heavyweight, ala Sam Langford, though Langford was one of the heaviest-handed fighters in history! Langford would simply punish Vitali until he either quit, or Langford scored a clean knockout!

Tantum wrote:I'm with PPP in this one.

This is not like asking... "Who would win, Joe Louis, or Lyakovich?" Like some of you are making it out to be.

It's more like... "Who would win, Tommy Burns, or Riddick Bowe?" Anyone who says Tommy Burns is a jackass.

I understand the respect for a great champ like Langford, but you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses a bit here.

You people don't seem to understand. Chris Byrd was pretty much AS BIG as Sam Langford, and he wasn't steam-rolled by Vitali Klitschko in the slightest. Langford had a remarkable body type, short of height but very long arms and a very solid build. Both he and Byrd were probably at a real peak weight of 175-180 lbs. Byrd protein-shaked and ate up to 210 to fight HWs. Langford ate up to 200 as well later in his career. If Byrd can fight competetively with your monster Vitali, Langford, as big as Byrd plus stronger and a much harder hitter, can surely fight the big man and not only last the distance, but win.

Did James Toney's fat-ass not teach you anything? I remember after the Holyfield fight people were saying "put Toney in with a REAL Heavyweight and he doesn't last a round" . . then, older and disguistingly fatter, he last 24 rounds with the "newest monster" 250 lb Sam Peter (and beat him in the first fight). If you'd said that in 1997 Toney would be lasting the distance with and beating some top HWs, you'd have been laughed at.

So featther-fisted Byrd, and fat-ass Toney can do it, but not P4P all time great fighter Sam Langford, who himself beat the top HWs of his day???

I don't think so.

It's a tough question. At first I thought Langford is so much better than Vitali that of course he wins. Then I thought about just big the size difference would be. It would be huge and appears insurmountable.

Langford did KO Wills though and Wills would be competitive with any of the greats and was a genuinely big man with skills.

Vitali is bigger than Wills but not as good.

This, coupled with Dempsey's points on Toney, makes me think Langford could do it.

BTW I'm not one to criticise Vitali. I think he was a good fighter. Many on these boards will tell you that Vitali lost to Byrd and there can be no apologies as a loss is a loss, but that somehow Dempsey's win over Sharkey was not legitimate.

It's amazing how many guys on this forum define Vitali's entire career on the basis of his fight with Chris Byrd.

Ezzard wrote:It's a tough question. At first I thought Langford is so much better than Vitali that of course he wins. Then I thought about just big the size difference would be. It would be huge and appears insurmountable.

Langford did KO Wills though and Wills would be competitive with any of the greats and was a genuinely big man with skills.

Vitali is bigger than Wills but not as good.

This, coupled with Dempsey's points on Toney, makes me think Langford could do it.

BTW I'm not one to criticise Vitali. I think he was a good fighter. Many on these boards will tell you that Vitali lost to Byrd and there can be no apologies as a loss is a loss, but that somehow Dempsey's win over Sharkey was not legitimate.

Excellent post Ezz.

Seamus wrote:It's amazing how many guys on this forum define Vitali's entire career on the basis of his fight with Chris Byrd.

B/c all he has is two losses to an old Lennox and Byrd, unless you want to say knockouts over a fat 38 year old Corrie Sanders and Herbie Hide are notable achievements. I don't really care what the score was at the time of the stoppages. After 6 rounds Bruno was also beating (a much younger) Lennox, but I don't see his career constantly revolving around that LOSS and a bunch of coulda woulda shouldas.

Sam Langford being almost as big as Chris Byrd has nothing to do with anything. (Which is bullshit anyways, 5'7" 180lbs is not 6' 210lbs) His style is nothing like Chris Byrd's.


On a side note... If Vitali fought Bernard Hopkins, Jermain Taylor, Riddick Bowe, Joe Calzaghe, and Silvio Branco during his "title reign", you guys would be going fornicating nuts over how pathetic this competition is...

Yet, for Jack Johnson, It's more than just ok, it's fornicating amazing.

Tantum wrote:Sam Langford being almost as big as Chris Byrd has nothing to do with anything. (Which is bullshit anyways, 5'7" 180lbs is not 6' 210lbs)

His style is nothing like Chris Byrd's.

I don't care about artificial weight gain. Anyone can blow themselves up 20 lbs through Creatine and eating. Byrd naturally is a light HW. Natural bone and tendon strength is much more important than just adding mass onto a frame. I would bet my car Langford not only hit 10 times as hard as Byrd but was also much stronger.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:It's a tough question. At first I thought Langford is so much better than Vitali that of course he wins. Then I thought about just big the size difference would be. It would be huge and appears insurmountable.

Langford did KO Wills though and Wills would be competitive with any of the greats and was a genuinely big man with skills.

Vitali is bigger than Wills but not as good.

This, coupled with Dempsey's points on Toney, makes me think Langford could do it.

BTW I'm not one to criticise Vitali. I think he was a good fighter. Many on these boards will tell you that Vitali lost to Byrd and there can be no apologies as a loss is a loss, but that somehow Dempsey's win over Sharkey was not legitimate.

Excellent post Ezz.

Thanks.

I am one who does think size matters in straight HW match ups. I also think that over the last 20-25 years there have been a lot of artifically souped up big men.

There's evidence that Langford could take on great HWs who were big and skilled. I'm not saying its a foregone conclusion just because Langford is so much better in a P4P sense. I'm just saying that I think he could and would win this one.

Problem with these match ups is that it's a big leap of imagination because it's hard to truly get to grips with the old-timers styles due to film quality.

I'll stick by what I've been saying for the last several years. There will never be another dominant heavyweight who weighs under 215 (actually under 230 is more lik it) Maybe we don't need another weight division. Just rename the Cruiserweight division the Heavyweight division, and call the heaviest one the Super Heavy. And I'll bet Povetkin weighs over 230 if and when he fights for a world title. AND how heavy is the new hottest prospect out of Cuba ?

Ezzard wrote: I am one who does think size matters in straight HW match ups. I also think that over the last 20-25 years there have been a lot of artifically souped up big men.

There's evidence that Langford could take on great HWs who were big and skilled. I'm not saying its a foregone conclusion just because Langford is so much better in a P4P sense. I'm just saying that I think he could and would win this one.

Problem with these match ups is that it's a big leap of imagination because it's hard to truly get to grips with the old-timers styles due to film quality.

Again we agree. I also believe that size matters as well, but the steep decline in boxing over the past 20 years or so, and the dreadful conditioning of almost all HWs today makes it reasonable to assume that an uber fighter like Langford would be able to overcome the great size advantages of today’s HWs just as he did during his own time. It wouldn’t be easy, but it certainly seems reasonable, if not likely.

And as many have pointed out, an old and grossly overweight MW/LH (Toney) has done pretty well against the over rated 250 lb Peter, so I find it hard to believe there are so many on this forum who can’t imagine a prime ATG Langford being too much for the large, but rather average and clumsy VK.

Tantum wrote:I'm with PPP in this one.

This is not like asking... "Who would win, Joe Louis, or Lyakovich?" Like some of you are making it out to be.

It's more like... "Who would win, Tommy Burns, or Riddick Bowe?" Anyone who says Tommy Burns is a jackass.

I understand the respect for a great champ like Langford, but you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses a bit here.

This is completely different than Burns vs Bowe. Langford was much better than Burns. Klitschko wasn't nearly as good as Bowe.

Seamus wrote:AND how heavy is the new hottest prospect out of Cuba ?

An obese 250+ lbs. Without the fat he'd probably weigh about 190.

The Great John L wrote:

Seamus wrote:AND how heavy is the new hottest prospect out of Cuba ?

An obese 250+ lbs. Without the fat he'd probably weigh about 190.

Solis in his mid 20s WAS weighing 200 lbs fighting in the HW division (178-200 lbs) in the amateurs.

Povetkin as well has noticeable chub at 220. He'd really be cut and in top shape at around 210 or less. If he fights at 230 he'll look like a baker rather than a fighter. He's not a very big Heavyweight.

>>>I don't care about artificial weight gain. Anyone can blow themselves up 20 lbs through Creatine and eating. Byrd naturally is a light HW.<<<

That couldn't be any more accurate!!! Whereas todays fighters come into a fight, including Vitali, with anywhere from 20 to 100 pounds of dead weight...weight which is nothing but fat! Fighters of Langfords era came in with very, very little fat. Now this would seem different with Langford as he was short and seemingly fat like a butterball but the time he was a heavyweight, but Langford had a lot less fat than today's heavyweights, so the extra weight argument really means little...that nis unless it is a very big heavyweight who can actually use every extra pound to their advantage...Lennox Lewis could do that...Vitali couldn't! Vitali is not even a top 50 heavyweight. Is it possible that Vitali could outpoint Langford...well certainly...is it likely...not really! Vitali is too fragile and Langford would simply beat him down and break him down to his size by hitting Vitali every where on his anatomy unless Vitali is either injured, or he quits, which he has quit and he has been injured more than any heavyweight that I can ever recall!