BoxRec

Go on treat yourself to a slice of pure fantasy...

Ezzard wrote:Go on treat yourself to a slice of pure fantasy...

IMH0, there come a point where pure size and strength overwhelms even the most skilled of adversaries.

The great Sam Langford was only 5'7" and weighed no more than 200 pounds at heavyweight. He lost too many fights against Harry Wills in the 1910s.. Wills was a 6'4" 215 pound specimen of pure muscle. They fought about 15 times I think and Wills got the majority of the wins. Well, also Langford was not the same fighter like in the 1900s decade.

My point is no matter how good Langford was, he would have been too small for the great Big George Foreman. Foreman by knockout.

elmersalsa wrote:The great Sam Langford was only 5'7" and weighed no more than 200 pounds at heavyweight. He lost too many fights against Harry Wills in the 1910s.. Wills was a 6'4" 215 pound specimen of pure muscle. They fought about 15 times I think and Wills got the majority of the wins. Well, also Langford was not the same fighter like in the 1900s decade.

My point is no matter how good Langford was, he would have been too small for the great Big George Foreman. Foreman by knockout.

No doubt about it.

Langford will always be a legend for what he was able to accomplish with massive size disadvantages, but when the disadvantage is this huge...I just don't see him able to win.

Both heavyweights but only technically.
The eras are too diverse.
Langford couldn't cope with the size and power of Foreman.
An ATG for his time, but in Foreman's time, Langford would be steamrolled.

sam would be far too smart to take this fight

Sam weighing 202 beat McVea who weighed 220...

But how good was McVea (that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one - I have no idea).

Langford beat guys just as big as Foreman . . .McVea, Wills (who he knocked out twice), Tate, Godfrey etc. And these were skilled fighters with speed, not clumsy oafs.
I'd rank Wills and Godfrey's strength and power up there with George's (and while Godfrey was green when they fought, Langford was nearly blind and way past his best). So simply saying Foreman overwhelms with with power and size doesn't match up with the facts. Langford was also a master at defense and blocking/slipping punches (this aspect of his game gets overshadowed by Johnson's defensive prowess). Peak for peak give me one of the top two best lb for lb fighters in the history of the sport.

dempseyfire wrote:Langford beat guys just as big as Foreman . . .McVea, Wills (who he knocked out twice), Tate, Godfrey etc. And these were skilled fighters with speed, not clumsy oafs.
I'd rank Wills and Godfrey's strength and power up there with George's (and while Godfrey was green when they fought, Langford was nearly blind and way past his best). So simply saying Foreman overwhelms with with power and size doesn't match up with the facts. Langford was also a master at defense and blocking/slipping punches (this aspect of his game gets overshadowed by Johnson's defensive prowess). Peak for peak give me one of the top two best lb for lb fighters in the history of the sport.

Still, Langford, too small for Big George.

dempseyfire wrote:Langford beat guys just as big as Foreman . . .McVea, Wills (who he knocked out twice), Tate, Godfrey etc. And these were skilled fighters with speed, not clumsy oafs.
I'd rank Wills and Godfrey's strength and power up there with George's (and while Godfrey was green when they fought, Langford was nearly blind and way past his best). So simply saying Foreman overwhelms with with power and size doesn't match up with the facts. Langford was also a master at defense and blocking/slipping punches (this aspect of his game gets overshadowed by Johnson's defensive prowess). Peak for peak give me one of the top two best lb for lb fighters in the history of the sport.

Your characterization of George Foreman as a clumsy oaf is inaccurate.