Marciano vs Langford

[AlFrancis]

Both weigh in at 185.
Don't know if the Rock fought many shorter than him. Here's one with a longer reach.
Does it make any difference?

[McGrain]

I'm gonna be a proper dickhead and pick Langford to win on cuts.

[AlFrancis]

How does the fight pan out?

[Flea Man]

I'm gonna get slaughtered for this one; Marciano by K.O, within five rounds.

[McGrain]

Fleaman, you have a really low opinion of Harry Wills!

[Holmes' Jab]

I'm gonna be a proper dickhead and pick Langford to win on cuts.


Me too.

[Flea Man]

Fleaman, you have a really low opinion of Harry Wills!


For no other reason than my opinion that Marciano hits harder than Johnson.......stupid I know but I had to pick.

[McGrain]

For no other reason than my opinion that Marciano hits harder than Johnson.......stupid I know but I had to pick.

Yeah, he does - but harder than McVey? He couldn't stop Langford...if Rocky stops Sam it will be on pressure. Sam loved a fighter that came onto him.

[Flea Man]

I think Langford baffles Marciano for a bit, hurts him, then Rocky feels the rage and steams through him, if you want an explanation :good

[Flea Man]

Yeah, he does - but harder than McVey? He couldn't stop Langford...if Rocky stops Sam it will be on pressure. Sam loved a fighter that came onto him.

You have a point my friend.

Better to be a Langford nuthugger than a Valero or Calzaghe one :lol::lol::lol: obviously I'm jokin'!

[janitor]

I think Marciano would have verry much the worst of the early rounds and probably visit the canvas more than once.

He might be able to take control of the fight in the mid rounds due to his workrate and pressure.

For my money this is verry much a 50/50 type fight. The outcome will be either:

Langford by stoppage.

Marciano by decision.

Or just maybe Langford by decision.

[janitor]

Yeah, he does - but harder than McVey? He couldn't stop Langford...if Rocky stops Sam it will be on pressure. Sam loved a fighter that came onto him.

McVea hit Langford flush on the chin with five sucesive left hooks and still didnt finish him off.

Langfords chin was incredible.

[Seamus]

Yeah, he does - but harder than McVey? He couldn't stop Langford...if Rocky stops Sam it will be on pressure. Sam loved a fighter that came onto him.

It is an incredible stretch to contend that McVey hit anywhere near as hard as Marciano. Really, I think his legacy benefits from the company he kept. His KO record against top flight opponents is underwhelming.

[Bummy Davis]

Langford was a master and he would offer Rocky a tough early match...His height at 5-6 may throw the Rock off for a while but once Rocky went into 2nd gear he would give Sam pressure that he never saw and power that he never felt before.....Marciano by KO 7-15...none of the Heavys Sam fought had the relentless strength, Stamina and 2 fisted power that Marciano had

[janitor]

It is an incredible stretch to contend that McVey hit anywhere near as hard as Marciano.

In a test using a pressure guage McVea hit harder than both Jeffries and Fitzsimmons.

McVea was probably the hardest puncher in his era in terms of raw power but as you know power alone wont guarantee a high knockout percentage against world class opposition.

[McGrain]

His KO record against top flight opponents is underwhelming.

Most KO records are.

[Boilermaker]

In a test using a pressure guage McVea hit harder than both Jeffries and Fitzsimmons.

McVea was probably the hardest puncher in his era in terms of raw power but as you know power alone wont guarantee a high knockout percentage against world class opposition.

Really?

What were the PSI results of the test and when was it taken?

[janitor]

Really?

What were the PSI results of the test and when was it taken?

Aparently McVea was measured at 1300 PSI. If this is acurate then he hit harder than Wlad Klitschko.

Unfortunately I have not been able to track down a primary source for this but I have heard it from enough diferent sources including Ring Magazine to suggest that there may be something in it.

[Minotauro]

I think McVea gets underrated sometimes he was a massive puncher didn't Johnson say McVea was the best fighter he faced. Plus he had stamina to go over 40 rounds and has to be one the most intimidating fighters I've ever seen. Amazing if he really hit harder then Wlad that would be huge testament to Langford's chin since he stood up to that.

[Seamus]

In a test using a pressure guage McVea hit harder than both Jeffries and Fitzsimmons.

McVea was probably the hardest puncher in his era in terms of raw power but as you know power alone wont guarantee a high knockout percentage against world class opposition.

Really? One would think the technology not that advanced at the time. I am highly skeptical. Both on the limited film available, on his record and in testaments, I am not that impressed with McVey. Tough guy in a tough era, sure. Big left hook. But nothing special.

[janitor]

[quote=Seamus;3689142]Really? One would think the technology not that advanced at the time. I am highly skeptical.

I hope you will remain so untill I track down a primary source.


Both on the limited film available, on his record and in testaments, I am not that impressed with McVey. Tough guy in a tough era, sure. Big left hook. But nothing special.


I agree that McVea was somewhat one dimensional but his resume is verry impresive to my mind.

[McGrain]

I think of McVey as a sort of deluxe Shavers.

Not a bad thing to be, but limited all the same.

[mcvey]

I think McVea gets underrated sometimes he was a massive puncher didn't Johnson say McVea was the best fighter he faced. Plus he had stamina to go over 40 rounds and has to be one the most intimidating fighters I've ever seen. Amazing if he really hit harder then Wlad that would be huge testament to Langford's chin since he stood up to that.

Johnson said McVey was the best man he faced ,and he reiterated it several times.

[mcvey]

I think of McVey as a sort of deluxe Shavers.

Not a bad thing to be, but limited all the same.

Do you see Shavers going 20rds against world class competition,multiple times?

[mcvey]

It is an incredible stretch to contend that McVey hit anywhere near as hard as Marciano. Really, I think his legacy benefits from the company he kept. His KO record against top flight opponents is underwhelming.

I think 47 kos in 65 wins is pretty good myself

[McGrain]

Do you see Shavers going 20rds against world class competition,multiple times?


Absoltuley not.

[Seamus]

I think 47 kos in 65 wins is pretty good myself

Those KO's were primarily against no-hopers with little or no recorded records.

Who is the best fighter he ever KO'd? Pelkey? Lester? Martin?

Bestill my beating heart.

[McGrain]

Didn't he KO Jim Johnson? Or is that mis-remembered?

Shavers also failed to score KO's over the best he fought, of course.

[dabox]

i think rocky would probably win by ko...in one of the hardest wars ever seen in boxing....both would be busted up but rocky more so

but i think he would in the end land something gigantic....

[SuzieQ49]

Langford by stoppage.

Marciano by decision.

Or just maybe Langford by decision.



Just curious why you think langford is capable of knocking out marciano? personally I think maybe only 1 or 2 punchers in history(one is named louis) is capable of stopping marciano. marciano had a concrete chin and amazing recup powers, the man couldn't be stopped.




I like marciano by decision in this one. watching langford on film, he was very scientific and intelligent, but marciano would land too frequently and pile up the points.

[janitor]

Those KO's were primarily against no-hopers with little or no recorded records.

Who is the best fighter he ever KO'd? Pelkey? Lester? Martin?

Bestill my beating heart.

Show me a fighterwho has a good KO% against elite fighters and I will show you an all time great finisher.

[janitor]

Just curious why you think langford is capable of knocking out marciano? personally I think maybe only 1 or 2 punchers in history(one is named louis) is capable of stopping marciano.

I honestly think that Langford is up there with guys like Louis as a finisher.

Top five of all time at heavyweight.

[AlFrancis]

Show me a fighterwho has a good KO% against elite fighters and I will show you an all time great finisher.

This is a something I agree with. Even the great punchers built up their percentage on the way up.
At top notch the openings aren't that easy to find.

[Maxmomer]

Langford takes it. Pretty decisively. By T/KO ref/corner stoppage, cuts, or he might just not be able to make the count after tasting the canvas a few times. Maybe a clear decision victory.

[PowerPuncher]

Marciano, better boxer, better timing, higher workrate, stronger, rangier, stronger. Would be a bruising battle but Marciano lands the better punches that tell the toll

[SuzieQ49]

Langford takes it. Pretty decisively. By T/KO ref/corner stoppage, cuts, or he might just not be able to make the count after tasting the canvas a few times. Maybe a clear decision victory


LoL.

[janitor]

Marciano, better boxer, better timing, higher workrate, stronger, rangier, stronger. Would be a bruising battle but Marciano lands the better punches that tell the toll

Ermmmmmmm

No.

[McGrain]

Just curious why you think langford is capable of knocking out marciano? personally I think maybe only 1 or 2 punchers in history(one is named louis) is capable of stopping marciano. marciano had a concrete chin and amazing recup powers, the man couldn't be stopped.

I think Langford is not that far behind Louis at the 175-190lbs mark where this fight would be fought.

KOing Marciano wouldn't be easy, but there is more than one way to skin a mountain lion.




I like marciano by decision in this one. watching langford on film, he was very scientific and intelligent, but marciano would land too frequently and pile up the points.

Definitely possible.

[McGrain]

Ermmmmmmm

No.

:lol:

I have to second this Powerpuncher. Your Langford take is way, way off.

[janitor]

I think Langford is not that far behind Louis at the 175-190lbs mark where this fight would be fought.


I have to love Clay Moyle.

Before he wrote his book I was an eccentric with a ridiculously high opinion of Sam Langford.

Now I am within the normal range.

[McGrain]

I've not read that yet, but i will.

Even without having read it, every single thing I look into regarding Langford causes him to shoot up in my estimation. He's the best that ever was as far as i can see, and I was dyed-in-the-wool Sugar when I joined this board.

[Seamus]

I have to love Clay Moyle.

Before he wrote his book I was an eccentric with a ridiculously high opinion of Sam Langford.

Now I am within the normal range.

I am with you there. A fantastic read and a good evaluation.

However, I think this match-up might be too much for Sam. I just don't think it's his best weight. He lost to Johnson (albeit as a rather green, undersized fighter) and Marciano was far more effective offensive fighter than Johnson in my book, harder puncher, more tenacious. Sam liked them when they came forward. However, I doubt he would have liked the workrate + power that Marciano brought. According to Sam himself, McVea tried to use the jab and retreat against him, so that is not an apt comparison.

That said, Sam is still in the argument of #1 all time LB4LB.

[Minotauro]

Marciano, better boxer, better timing, higher workrate, stronger, rangier, stronger. Would be a bruising battle but Marciano lands the better punches that tell the toll

We get it Rocky's stronger.

[Minotauro]

I've not read that yet, but i will.

Even without having read it, every single thing I look into regarding Langford causes him to shoot up in my estimation. He's the best that ever was as far as i can see, and I was dyed-in-the-wool Sugar when I joined this board.

Langford almost doesn't seem human to get those quality wins from lightweight to heavyweight. I can't think of anyone who carried their punch like him either sometimes I think maybe he is made up the footage must be fake nobody can dominate in that many weights.

[djanders]

Hard fight to figure out. Close one. In a 12-15 round fight, 3 judges, prime vs prime, Marciano wins by a majority decision...in my opinion.

[he grant]

Rocky was made to order for Langford as was Dempsey ... Everyone raves about Rocky's chin and it was terrific buty alltime great ? Who were the three best punchers he ever fought? I say Langford knocks him out in five or six ...

[dpw417]

What a nasty,vicious, knockdown, drag out fight...It's not a question of who wins...it's who survives!

[Mendoza]

Both weigh in at 185.
Don't know if the Rock fought many shorter than him. Here's one with a longer reach.
Does it make any difference?

Sometimes I get the feeling Langford would beat Dempsey, Louis, or Marciano.

Sam was a skilled brawler with a rock for a chin, great stamina, and very strong inside and out. I wish there was more film on him. The known films on Langford are Flynn, Hauge, Lang, and Jeanette.

Sam looks great in the Lang film, and pretty good in the Flynn film. He destroys Hauge. Have not seen the Jeanette film, but only a select lucky few have.

[dpw417]

Sometimes I get the feeling Langford would beat Dempsey, Louis, or Marciano.

Sam was a skilled brawler with a rock for a chin, great stamina, and very strong inside and out. I wish there was more film on him. The known films on Langford are Flynn, Hauge, Lang, and Jeanette.

Sam looks great in the Lang film, and pretty good in the Flynn film. He destroys Hauge. Have not seen the Jeanette film, but only a select lucky few have.
Is there film of the Hague fight? I haven't heard of it myself.

[Mendoza]

Is there film of the Hague fight? I haven't heard of it myself.


Yes, there is.

[rekcutnevets]

I am more impressed by footage of Langford than I am of any of the old time fighters. Langford was boxing's stylistic evolution in fast forward. I can only imagine how slick Langford would have been in the 50's.

Langford would be too slick for Marciano to mount any kind of sustained offense against.

Langford by Dec

[Mendoza]

I am more impressed by footage of Langford than I am of any of the old time fighters. Langford was boxing's stylistic evolution in fast forward. I can only imagine how slick Langford would have been in the 50's.

Langford would be too slick for Marciano to mount any kind of sustained offense against.

Langford by Dec

I came up with an idea while back. Many of the old time films run too fast or too slow. Poster Upwithevil, who is pretty good with computers/ video equipment took my advice and timed each round at 3 minutes, then made the action either speed up or slow down to fit inside a normal round. While it wasn't perfect, Langford looked very good at a normal speed.

On the films I have seen Langford's lone weakness seems to be vs an outside jabber due to Sam's average defense, though Sam hardly cared. He worked his way in, cut off the ring, then delivered a thunderous attack with speed and accuracy.

[he grant]

I had not idea there was Jeanette or Hague footage ... are you sure of that ? There must be a way to see it if it exists ...

[Maxmomer]

LoL.

What's funny? Langford is the P4P greatest fighter of all time and at his best he weighed only slightly less than Marciano. Langford's chin was proven rock hard at heavyweight, probably better than any of Marciano's opponents, maybe better than Marciano's. The argument is usually that Marciano will wear down a more skillful opponent due to his work rate and stamina, but Langford had the stamina and toughness to go 20 rounds against all time great opposition more than once. Langford was smarter, faster more skillful, a better puncher, a better boxer and I think he has a stylistic advantage.

[Flea Man]

One thing Marciano is not is rangier than Langford!!!!

[Mendoza]

I had not idea there was Jeanette or Hague footage ... are you sure of that ? There must be a way to see it if it exists ...

Yes, I am sure they exist. They are rare fight films.

[Mendoza]

McVea hit Langford flush on the chin with five sucesive left hooks and still didnt finish him off.

Langfords chin was incredible.

Exactly, and I have been saying this for years. From 11-1906 to 05-1917, Langford had something like 100 fights ( too lazy to count right now ) at heavyweight and was not stopped. This record will never be broken.

Langford fought Wills, and McVey many times, and we all know his style wasn't Gene Tunney's. Langford was in there to fight. I do not think Marciano, even if he hit a little harder than Wills or McVey if likely to stop Langford.

In truth it took Rocky on average a shade over 9 rounds to win his title matches, and this includes a first round quit job by Walcott who in my book opted not to get up, then looked fine at " 11 ".

Most of the Ko's Rocky got were when the other guy gassed, or really did not have the best chin. Langford was a compact study man, with the stamina of a marathon runner. If Rocky wins here, I say the odds are for a decision over a KO. On the topic of great heavyweight chins, Langford belongs in there with Jeffries, Chavalo, Cobb, and V Klitschko.

I wish there was more on Langford for me to see.

[PowerPuncher]

Ermmmmmmm

No.

How is Marciano not rangier? He has 6inches on height on Langford, how would this not be a factor?

I think Rocky's a better boxer, because he's underrated in this aspect, the way he rolls punches and times his own, his accuracy, and he did all this against the very best opposition

Langford looks to be a bit too much of a brawler on film and the film being sped up with missing frames makes him look better than he really is

[ChrisPontius]

Marciano is not rangier than Langford?? :lol:

[mcvey]

I came up with an idea while back. Many of the old time films run too fast or too slow. Poster Upwithevil, who is pretty good with computers/ video equipment took my advice and timed each round at 3 minutes, then made the action either speed up or slow down to fit inside a normal round. While it wasn't perfect, Langford looked very good at a normal speed.

On the films I have seen Langford's lone weakness seems to be vs an outside jabber due to Sam's average defense, though Sam hardly cared. He worked his way in, cut off the ring, then delivered a thunderous attack with speed and accuracy.
Long range jabbing was how Fulton beat Sam ,Gunboat Smith once too ,but Langford was having problems with his sight by then ,Fulton cut his eyes to peices.

[McGrain]

Exactly, and I have been saying this for years. From 11-1906 to 05-1917, Langford had something like 100 fights ( too lazy to count right now ) at heavyweight and was not stopped. This record will never be broken.

When you consider he was fighting at an inflated weight...imagine what he would do in a a more modern environment between 154 and 200?


I wish there was more on Langford for me to see.




Yeah

[janitor]

[quote=PowerPuncher;3694672]How is Marciano not rangier? He has 6inches on height on Langford, how would this not be a factor?


Marciano has4 inches of height on Langford but gives up six inces in reach.


I think Rocky's a better boxer, because he's underrated in this aspect, the way he rolls punches and times his own, his accuracy, and he did all this against the very best opposition


Marciano might be a better technician than he is given credit for but he is not even in Langfords class.

Langford was a technical finisher in the mould of Duran. He outboxed technicians.

Langford looks to be a bit too much of a brawler on film and the film being sped up with missing frames makes him look better than he really is

Film being sped up and missing frames never makes fighters look better only worse.

No Langford wasnt just a brawler. He used that tactic when it was apropriate but stuck and moved against larger oponents.

[McGrain]

He didn't just out-box technicians, he out-boxed an all time great boxer in Gans.

Senya shed some really interesting light on this win, and although Langford had certain advantages on the night, he's persistantly described as being "out-generalled" and boxed by a young Sam, with some sources giving Langford every round of a boxing match.

[SuzieQ49]

Ok Ive had enough. Sam is a great great fighter with many great great stories, but we have to be realists. this is limited film of langford, and even though he looks good, he also displays flaws on film that many people are excluding and trying to hide behind his fantastic longevity/record. Marciano to me on film, looks better. I dont think there is a 185lb man and below in history of the world(outside of perhaps dempsey 50/50) that can beat rocky marciano. rocky is a freak of nature, guys his own size and below can't possibly beat him. There is absolutley no way sam langford is stronger than rocky marciano, sorry hes jut not. he is also 5 inches shorter and 5-10lb lighter. Going over sams record, these disadvantages dont seem like much, but when your giving them up to rocky marciano...they are!

People keep bringin up sam mcvea this, sam mcvea that. Sorry, but sams not that good, he looks like shit on film. now i do think hes better than film indicates, but hes not the mike tyson some people say he is. I hadvnt heard one person mention walcott or charles in this thread, and both looks far better on film than mcvea does. people rave about mcvea all time hitting machine, but who has he knocked out? i hadvnt heard anyone bring up ezzard charles as a puncher, yet he knocked out better heavyweights than mcvea did. just cause langford took sam mcveas punches, so what? and marciano cant take a Mcvea left hook?. marcianos all around punching abilties, combinations to head and body, his non stop knockout punches for 15 plus rounds, his Suzy Q, and his wide variety of punches make him a very hard candinate to go the distance with. marciano has the power in one punch to put anyones lights out. mcvea was not a better puncher than marciano, and he isnt half the fighter marciano was all around. the only fighter langford fought close to marciano in both accomplishments and all around abilties was 185lb jack johnson. jack johnson destroyed him, knocking him down twice. langford never would have beat johnson on his best day. There was one poster here, maxonomer, not to single him out but he said langford would easily clearly defeat marciano. NO ONE in history would have an easy time with marciano, no one. he would be a nightmare for anyone he ever faces, and no one would ever want to face him again. ESB gives marciano his due in accomplishments, but he continues to be severely underated in h2h matchups. Rocky has a style of his own thats unmatched in history, and he has some incredible tools to go along with that style. Sam is a great fighter who accomplished alot in every weight class. but just because he beats gans at lightweight, doesnt mean he will streamroll through a ATG bigger heavyweight who never ever lost.


I think rocky wins on points in a competitive match because he will be too busy for sam, but sam isnt god here. rocky could very well overpower the little man and flatten him with one punch. I doubt it, but its alot more likely and some of the other opinions thrown around. I can't see how Sam is going to knock out rocky. When have we ever seen rocky badly hurt on film? wen?? so suddenly people are going to make up fantasy's of marciano being down and out, when weve never seen it happen? rocky was impossible to keep down, and damm near impossible to knockout(especially by a smaller man). his chin was made of concrete.

[Cmoyle]

"the only fighter langford fought close to marciano in both accomplishments and all around abilties was 185lb jack johnson. jack johnson destroyed him, knocking him down twice. langford never would have beat johnson on his best day."

It always seems kind of pointless to me to debate who would win between two guys who never fought, and never will, but I can't resist replying to the above statement. First, the one and only time Johnson fought Langford, Johnson was 28 year old and Langford was only 20. Langford had not yet finished maturing physically and was reported to weigh anywhere from 140-156 pounds. So Johnson is said to have outweighed him by as much as 40 lbs. It's hard to say whether Langford would have stood a chance to beat him anytime from say 1909-1912, or 1913, when Langford was often the logical # 1 contender. Some folks from that era, including the likes of Joe Jeannette, who fought both men a number of times, say Langford would have beat him, but who knows, the 2nd fight never took place. The version of Langford that Johnson fought in 1906 was a far cry from the version he would have faced anytime from 1909-1913. I don't think Marciano's height advantage over Sam would have mattered at all, Langford obviously knocked out many heavyweights a lot taller than Marciano over the course of his career.

[Seamus]

Ok Ive had enough. Sam is a great great fighter with many great great stories, but we have to be realists. this is limited film of langford, and even though he looks good, he also displays flaws on film that many people are excluding and trying to hide behind his fantastic longevity/record. Marciano to me on film, looks better. I dont think there is a 185lb man and below in history of the world(outside of perhaps dempsey 50/50) that can beat rocky marciano. rocky is a freak of nature, guys his own size and below can't possibly beat him. There is absolutley no way sam langford is stronger than rocky marciano, sorry hes jut not. he is also 5 inches shorter and 5-10lb lighter. Going over sams record, these disadvantages dont seem like much, but when your giving them up to rocky marciano...they are!

People keep bringin up sam mcvea this, sam mcvea that. Sorry, but sams not that good, he looks like shit on film. now i do think hes better than film indicates, but hes not the mike tyson some people say he is. I hadvnt heard one person mention walcott or charles in this thread, and both looks far better on film than mcvea does. people rave about mcvea all time hitting machine, but who has he knocked out? i hadvnt heard anyone bring up ezzard charles as a puncher, yet he knocked out better heavyweights than mcvea did. just cause langford took sam mcveas punches, so what? and marciano cant take a Mcvea left hook?. marcianos all around punching abilties, combinations to head and body, his non stop knockout punches for 15 plus rounds, his Suzy Q, and his wide variety of punches make him a very hard candinate to go the distance with. marciano has the power in one punch to put anyones lights out. mcvea was not a better puncher than marciano, and he isnt half the fighter marciano was all around. the only fighter langford fought close to marciano in both accomplishments and all around abilties was 185lb jack johnson. jack johnson destroyed him, knocking him down twice. langford never would have beat johnson on his best day. There was one poster here, maxonomer, not to single him out but he said langford would easily clearly defeat marciano. NO ONE in history would have an easy time with marciano, no one. he would be a nightmare for anyone he ever faces, and no one would ever want to face him again. ESB gives marciano his due in accomplishments, but he continues to be severely underated in h2h matchups. Rocky has a style of his own thats unmatched in history, and he has some incredible tools to go along with that style. Sam is a great fighter who accomplished alot in every weight class. but just because he beats gans at lightweight, doesnt mean he will streamroll through a ATG bigger heavyweight who never ever lost.


I think rocky wins on points in a competitive match because he will be too busy for sam, but sam isnt god here. rocky could very well overpower the little man and flatten him with one punch. I doubt it, but its alot more likely and some of the other opinions thrown around. I can't see how Sam is going to knock out rocky. When have we ever seen rocky badly hurt on film? wen?? so suddenly people are going to make up fantasy's of marciano being down and out, when weve never seen it happen? rocky was impossible to keep down, and damm near impossible to knockout(especially by a smaller man). his chin was made of concrete.

now, don't go injecting sanity into this discussion.

and i really don't get the mcvea thing. people seem to like him because he looks frightening in his pictures. well, that don't exactly cut it for me. he looks like shite on film.

[Bummy Davis]

Ok Ive had enough. Sam is a great great fighter with many great great stories, but we have to be realists. this is limited film of langford, and even though he looks good, he also displays flaws on film that many people are excluding and trying to hide behind his fantastic longevity/record. Marciano to me on film, looks better. I dont think there is a 185lb man and below in history of the world(outside of perhaps dempsey 50/50) that can beat rocky marciano. rocky is a freak of nature, guys his own size and below can't possibly beat him. There is absolutley no way sam langford is stronger than rocky marciano, sorry hes jut not. he is also 5 inches shorter and 5-10lb lighter. Going over sams record, these disadvantages dont seem like much, but when your giving them up to rocky marciano...they are!

People keep bringin up sam mcvea this, sam mcvea that. Sorry, but sams not that good, he looks like shit on film. now i do think hes better than film indicates, but hes not the mike tyson some people say he is. I hadvnt heard one person mention walcott or charles in this thread, and both looks far better on film than mcvea does. people rave about mcvea all time hitting machine, but who has he knocked out? i hadvnt heard anyone bring up ezzard charles as a puncher, yet he knocked out better heavyweights than mcvea did. just cause langford took sam mcveas punches, so what? and marciano cant take a Mcvea left hook?. marcianos all around punching abilties, combinations to head and body, his non stop knockout punches for 15 plus rounds, his Suzy Q, and his wide variety of punches make him a very hard candinate to go the distance with. marciano has the power in one punch to put anyones lights out. mcvea was not a better puncher than marciano, and he isnt half the fighter marciano was all around. the only fighter langford fought close to marciano in both accomplishments and all around abilties was 185lb jack johnson. jack johnson destroyed him, knocking him down twice. langford never would have beat johnson on his best day. There was one poster here, maxonomer, not to single him out but he said langford would easily clearly defeat marciano. NO ONE in history would have an easy time with marciano, no one. he would be a nightmare for anyone he ever faces, and no one would ever want to face him again. ESB gives marciano his due in accomplishments, but he continues to be severely underated in h2h matchups. Rocky has a style of his own thats unmatched in history, and he has some incredible tools to go along with that style. Sam is a great fighter who accomplished alot in every weight class. but just because he beats gans at lightweight, doesnt mean he will streamroll through a ATG bigger heavyweight who never ever lost.


I think rocky wins on points in a competitive match because he will be too busy for sam, but sam isnt god here. rocky could very well overpower the little man and flatten him with one punch. I doubt it, but its alot more likely and some of the other opinions thrown around. I can't see how Sam is going to knock out rocky. When have we ever seen rocky badly hurt on film? wen?? so suddenly people are going to make up fantasy's of marciano being down and out, when weve never seen it happen? rocky was impossible to keep down, and damm near impossible to knockout(especially by a smaller man). his chin was made of concrete.


Hey Suzie you are back with VIM and Vigger...I agree 100%...none of the the fighters Sam fought were a modern machine like Marciano with 2 fisted power...I think Sam was great and I respect the natural strength of his day..there was something special to him but Marciano too strong...even Charles would present a serious problem for him..still I think he can be competitive but may also be overpowered by Marciano..who was a freak as well

[teeto]

Marciano for me.

[he grant]

Many Marciano fans are the miost blind faith driven in the sport. I like and respect Marciano but feel he is highly overated.

Who are the best punchers this "granite" chinned fighter fought ?

Who are the best fighters? Marciano was a warrior, no question but he was also extremely lucky he fought in the era he did and was smart to get out when he did .

Langford destroyed much bigger, stronger, harder hitting and better fighters than Marciano. No one stood up to Sam's power. From Jack Johnson to Harry Wills to Jim Flynn to Gunboat Smith to George Godfrey to Kid Norfalk, all agreed Langford was the hardest puncher, by far that they had ever faced.

(More to come)

[Minotauro]

now, don't go injecting sanity into this discussion.

and i really don't get the mcvea thing. people seem to like him because he looks frightening in his pictures. well, that don't exactly cut it for me. he looks like shite on film.

People are bringing up McVea because of his power and the fact that Langford stood up to it which is a testament to his chin rather then how good McVea was.

[he grant]

Langford took more than McVey's punches ... he took Wills bombs and Wills was a murderous puncher. He took Godfrey's punches. He took Flynn's and Flynn hit hard enough to KO Dempsey. His resume is exceptional and he was at his best against fighters who chose to slug with him ... just a terrible match up for Marciano ...

[Bummy Davis]

From what I have seen of Langford he looks like a solid guy but tit is hard to judge in an era where there were so many draws and lets just say a 5-6 guy fighting Harry wills 6"2 is impressive and Mcvey and Jennette but when you have a close fight with Stanley Ketchel ( impressive) I remember listening to Nat Fleicher, he loved Langford, Johnson,Fitz, Corbett,Jeffries...here were his ratings 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis, 7. Sam Langford, 8. Gene Tunney, 9. Max Schmeling, 10. Rocky Marciano.



I could see Max with sentiment for the older era fighters but WATCHING FILMS OF THEM...I have to say either the film was very poor or they were. I think Boxing in the heavyweight division had there strong Champs....Sullivan before gloves...Johnson,Dempsey,Louis,Marciano,Ali.....then there were a lot of co-champs but we would have to say Tyson,Holmes and Lewis were strong....I try to be fair and out it all into perspective but it is not easy if you did not live it....and as far as the old timers in Langfords era few that post here have seen him or lived it.

[SuzieQ49]

godfrey was a 2 fight novice when he fought langford. I see that your more than willing to bring up the age of marciano's opponents in attempt to downgrade his opposition. It works both ways, godfrey was no more than an embro when he fought sam, and whose to say sam took his punches? it was a quick knockout, I doubt godfrey ever landed on sams chin.


He took Flynn's and Flynn hit hard enough to KO Dempsey


flynn was a joke. have you seen him on film vs johnson? hes a toughman contestant, not a world class boxer.




he took Wills bombs and Wills was a murderous puncher

1. where is this proof he took all these bombs? not to mention wills kicked his ass about ninety percent of the time

2. who did sam mcvea ever knockout? i dont hear you calling ezzard charles a murderous puncher, yet he knocked out much better heavyweights than mcvea did. Mcveas best knockout actually came very early in his career in his 5th pro bout, over denver ed martin.

3. By the time Harry Wills matured into a man, he beat the living daylights out of langford around 10 times.


just a terrible match up for Marciano ...

I think a shorter, smaller fighter who is willing to mix it up with marciano is a dream matchup for rock. Terrible matchup here for langford. langford likes to take his time, he wont be able to take his time vs rocky, and rocky has the ability to end the fight with one punch at any time.


and he was at his best against fighters who chose to slug with him


and marciano wasn't? Archie Moore said in the 1980s "there isnt a fighter past present or future who could slug it out with marciano and come out alive". now archie moore picks certain fighters to beat marciano, but he always remained firm no one could ever outslug him.

resume is exceptional


Sure, but I happen to think marcianos opponents look exceptional on film too.


Many Marciano fans are the miost blind faith driven in the sport.


I could say the same about old time langford fans who believe all the myths and fairy tale stories. Seems more like fantasy to me. with marciano, you can see him and his opponents with your own two eyes, its reality. and he looks great.


Who are the best punchers this "granite" chinned fighter fought ?


its not just the punchers that he fought, but the fact we have never seen rocky marciano badly hurt or near knockout on film. not many champions can say this.

Joe Louis hit marciano with a flush left hook at the end of the first round, and rocky took it like a champ....the same left hook that knocked the durable lee savold out months earlier, and same left hook which toppled nino valdez in an exhibition in 1950...also the same left hook which nearly decapitated billy conn in 1946. Louis was 6'2 214lb, alot of force behind that punch. what did sam mcveas left hook ever do???

Rex Layne hit marciano flush with his knockout right hand numerous times on film which rocky shook off without blinking. And this isnt impressive? why not? if your concerned about age, Layne was only 22 he also had a high knockout percentage at the time. since you like old timers opinions I thought youd like this one. "He is a very hard hitter and has what it takes to be the next heavyweight champion of the world"- Nat Fleischer on Rex Layne in 1950. whos to say mcvea or any of langfords other opponents hit harder than layne?

Here is what the well respected John Garfield had to say on Layne

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down. But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."



Jersey Joe Walcott is another name. I would be willing to bet my house that walcott was the more dangerous puncher than sam mcvea or any other langford opponents. On Film, Walcott displays tremendous punching power that cannot be thrown out the window. its there on film with naked eye, for all of us too see. with langford and mcvea, we hear myths stories legends. with walcott, we see results, we see incredible one punch knockouts over ezzard charles that rates top 5 in history, and we also see 3 one punch knockdowns over some guy named joe louis and the first to floor the rock. When Ring Magazine rated Walcott # 63 on there top 100 punchers list of all time, they did it for a reason.



How bout Archie Moore? what so bob fitzimmons and langford had the power to knockout any heavyweight but not moore? what makes them two better punchers than moore? So langford knocked out big men, so did moore. Moore went 22-1 with 19 knockouts above men over 200lb, and this isnt impressive? Are the big boys langford beat that much better than valdez or baker? I dont think so. moore showed he is more than capable of knocking out anybody regardless of size. On a sidenote, moore twice knocked out bert whitehurst. this is signifigant because whitehurst twice lasted the distance with a prime sonny liston!

Have you ever seen langford or fitz produce a knockout like this? in fact i have not seen many 175lbers produce one punch knockouts like this. O this is against a 23 year old(i knew i had to throw his age in there for ya) 6'2 210lb heavyweight, and these big guys in the 50s actually possessed athletiscm, unlike most of the jess willard farmers of the old days.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


6'5 220lb Johnny Skhor the big brawler from boston, 6'4 Carmine Vingo who reg gutteridge called one of the hardest hitters hed ever seen. these guys could hit too.


thought it doesnt rank near the top, I would say marciano fought a decent group of punchers but it wasnt the punchers he fought who made his chin legendary...it was the fact we have never seen rocky marciano on rubbery legs or badly hurt on film.

[he grant]

Agreed but like Greb you have tons of newspaper coverage and the first hand accounts of eyewitnesses. And of course you have their record .. as far as oldtimers go you either believe pre-1930's were a lower grade or you do not ... the films are limited and of poor quality but they are but one source ...

Newspaper coverage is the proof of the fights. Are you claiming the coverage is all false?

Wills began dominating Langford later in Sam's career when Langford was half blind. Where is your mentioning of the two one punch KO's Langford scored over him?

You call Flynn a joke but he did knock out Jack Dempsey in one round. Was Dempsey a joke or did the fight not happen since no film exists?

Are you making an argument that Rex Layne was a great heavyweight? Is this because film exists?

How can you bet your house that Walcott was a better hitter than McVey when only one fuzzy clip of McVey exists?

Who were the three biggest punchers Marciano fought? According to you Walcott (age 38 , Moore (over forty) and Layne ? Not that impressive.

The best thing Marciano did was retire before he got hurt. He would have been murdered in the 1960's , the 1970's and the 1990's ....

[Mendoza]

"the only fighter langford fought close to marciano in both accomplishments and all around abilties was 185lb jack johnson. jack johnson destroyed him, knocking him down twice. langford never would have beat johnson on his best day."

It always seems kind of pointless to me to debate who would win between two guys who never fought, and never will, but I can't resist replying to the above statement. First, the one and only time Johnson fought Langford, Johnson was 28 year old and Langford was only 20. Langford had not yet finished maturing physically and was reported to weigh anywhere from 140-156 pounds. So Johnson is said to have outweighed him by as much as 40 lbs. It's hard to say whether Langford would have stood a chance to beat him anytime from say 1909-1912, or 1913, when Langford was often the logical # 1 contender. Some folks from that era, including the likes of Joe Jeannette, who fought both men a number of times, say Langford would have beat him, but who knows, the 2nd fight never took place. The version of Langford that Johnson fought in 1906 was a far cry from the version he would have faced anytime from 1909-1913. I don't think Marciano's height advantage over Sam would have mattered at all, Langford obviously knocked out many heavyweights a lot taller than Marciano over the course of his career.

Ditto.

[Seamus]

People are bringing up McVea because of his power and the fact that Langford stood up to it which is a testament to his chin rather then how good McVea was.

Bullshit. He never KO'd a single, credible great fighter. Marciano KO'd 4 of them.

I'm sorry, by the 50's boxing was far and away more advanced than it was in the early part of the century. There is a mass-delusional scenario occurring here regarding the quality of some of these 1895-1920 fighters. On the film we have, Langford impresses, Johnson show flashes and the rest look like rank amateurs. I do not regard much of Langford's contemporaries as anything but "good for their era". They could not cope with Walcott or Charles or Moore, let alone Rex Layne. I know this is sacrilege in the parts but after a few decades around the sport, it's the way I sees it.

[Mendoza]

Seamus,

Watch Langford vs Lang, and you see Sam has plenty of skills. Marciano was considered the crudest champion of all time in his day, and this dates back to the champions of the late 1890's. Yet Marciano despite his crudeness Ko'd what you view as far more skilled boxers of the 1950’s. I think a few fighters from the 1890’s-1920’s could do the same to Charles, Walcott or Layne.

In short, if you got power, stamina, and chin you are always dangerous at heavyweight. Sam had that and some skills too.

[ChrisPontius]

Ok Ive had enough. Sam is a great great fighter with many great great stories, but we have to be realists. this is limited film of langford, and even though he looks good, he also displays flaws on film that many people are excluding and trying to hide behind his fantastic longevity/record. Marciano to me on film, looks better. I dont think there is a 185lb man and below in history of the world(outside of perhaps dempsey 50/50) that can beat rocky marciano. rocky is a freak of nature, guys his own size and below can't possibly beat him. There is absolutley no way sam langford is stronger than rocky marciano, sorry hes jut not. he is also 5 inches shorter and 5-10lb lighter. Going over sams record, these disadvantages dont seem like much, but when your giving them up to rocky marciano...they are!

People keep bringin up sam mcvea this, sam mcvea that. Sorry, but sams not that good, he looks like shit on film. now i do think hes better than film indicates, but hes not the mike tyson some people say he is. I hadvnt heard one person mention walcott or charles in this thread, and both looks far better on film than mcvea does. people rave about mcvea all time hitting machine, but who has he knocked out? i hadvnt heard anyone bring up ezzard charles as a puncher, yet he knocked out better heavyweights than mcvea did. just cause langford took sam mcveas punches, so what? and marciano cant take a Mcvea left hook?. marcianos all around punching abilties, combinations to head and body, his non stop knockout punches for 15 plus rounds, his Suzy Q, and his wide variety of punches make him a very hard candinate to go the distance with. marciano has the power in one punch to put anyones lights out. mcvea was not a better puncher than marciano, and he isnt half the fighter marciano was all around. the only fighter langford fought close to marciano in both accomplishments and all around abilties was 185lb jack johnson. jack johnson destroyed him, knocking him down twice. langford never would have beat johnson on his best day. There was one poster here, maxonomer, not to single him out but he said langford would easily clearly defeat marciano. NO ONE in history would have an easy time with marciano, no one. he would be a nightmare for anyone he ever faces, and no one would ever want to face him again. ESB gives marciano his due in accomplishments, but he continues to be severely underated in h2h matchups. Rocky has a style of his own thats unmatched in history, and he has some incredible tools to go along with that style. Sam is a great fighter who accomplished alot in every weight class. but just because he beats gans at lightweight, doesnt mean he will streamroll through a ATG bigger heavyweight who never ever lost.


I think rocky wins on points in a competitive match because he will be too busy for sam, but sam isnt god here. rocky could very well overpower the little man and flatten him with one punch. I doubt it, but its alot more likely and some of the other opinions thrown around. I can't see how Sam is going to knock out rocky. When have we ever seen rocky badly hurt on film? wen?? so suddenly people are going to make up fantasy's of marciano being down and out, when weve never seen it happen? rocky was impossible to keep down, and damm near impossible to knockout(especially by a smaller man). his chin was made of concrete.

This is probably one of your best posts. :good It's not like i was on the fence for this matchup, but this saved me a lot of typework. :hey

[he grant]

I don't think the sport has evolved like you say. The main difference is in distance of matches and pace set ... Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Benny Leonard were master boxer/punchers ... there were many , many more ... the joke is of all the more modern fighters Marciano was one of the crudest ... he was all about heart, stamina, power and chin ...

[SuzieQ49]

Thanx Chris! That means alot. I think I have changed a bit over the preceding months.



I'm sorry, by the 50's boxing was far and away more advanced than it was in the early part of the century. There is a mass-delusional scenario occurring here regarding the quality of some of these 1895-1920 fighters. On the film we have, Langford impresses, Johnson show flashes and the rest look like rank amateurs. I do not regard much of Langford's contemporaries as anything but "good for their era". They could not cope with Walcott or Charles or Moore, let alone Rex Layne


We are in total agreement Seamus. Although i would include jack dempsey in the "looks very good" list



Marciano was considered the crudest champion of all time in his day


We have our own two eyes to see, and its quite clear not only is marciano not crude, but he is deceptivley skilled and has a unique style that is unmatched in history. I would also argue that many great boxing minds of the past did not consider marciano crude. Angelo Dundee for example constantly referred to marciano as being very good defensivley. Charlie Goldman made rocky on film look far from crude. You want crude, take a look at max baer or jim jeffries on film. Even Tom Sharkey looks extremley crude. I have a couple police gazette issues and they refer to jeffries as "crude".


think a few fighters from the 1890’s-1920’s could do the same to Charles, Walcott or Layne.


I dont think so. Charles and Walcott do amazing techniques on film that fighters from 1890-1920 had never seen before. they would be way overmatched by charles and walcotts much more developed boxing techniques. High gaurd, triple jabs, combinations, head movement, slick upperbody movement....fighters from 1890-1920 had never seen this stuff before and charles and walcott were the BEST at it. There is a reason james toney and bernard hopkins study jersey joe walcott vs Ezzard charles fights on film, and not james corbett vs peter courtney.

[SuzieQ49]

the joke is of all the more modern fighters Marciano was one of the crudest

Says who??



Wills began dominating Langford later in Sam's career when Langford was half blind. Where is your mentioning of the two one punch KO's Langford scored over him?


This is his most impressive knockouts, for sure. but that the same time wills was a greenhorn when these two knockouts especially the first one were taking place. In fact, Wills recorded a win over sam langford, just 10 pro fights into his career...thats embarrasing for a just 30 year old langford. Wills beat langford over 10 times some sources say, while langford just twice. I think many other heavyweight champions in there 30s are capable of beating harry wills twice out of 15 oppertunies if given the chance.


You call Flynn a joke but he did knock out Jack Dempsey in one round. Was Dempsey a joke or did the fight not happen since no film exists?

Did you watch Flynn on film vs johnson? please tell me that is not seriousely a world class boxing fighter.

Are you making an argument that Rex Layne was a great heavyweight? Is this because film exists?

My arguement was Rex Layne is he is a hard puncher. nothing more, nothing less.


Who were the three biggest punchers Marciano fought? According to you Walcott (age 38 , Moore (over forty) and Layne ? Not that impressive.



Just curious, what does age have to do with punching power? I see you deceptivley shyed away from addressing my points on archie moores success against heavyweights over 200lb. Rex Layne was 34-1(25 kayoes) top rated and 22 years old with a big reputation, you dont think taking punches off of him is impressive?

* I would add Joe Louis to that top 3 list.. At a solid 6'2 213lb any punch from Louis would hurt a 185lb man.


You say the list isnt impressive. In comparison to Ali, perhaps not. but in comparison to the average champion, I would say its impressive. All four fighters I listed (louis, walcott, layne, and moore) produced some devastating one punch knockouts on film for all of us to see. what did mcvea ever show us? what did flynn ever show us??


The best thing Marciano did was retire before he got hurt. He would have been murdered in the 1960's , the 1970's and the 1990's ....


1960s?? Wasnt 45 year old formr marciano victim Archie Moore rated # 4 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine in 1962? Yet marciano gets murdered in the 1960s? Didnt George Chuvalo manage to stay atop the ring magazine rankings throughout the decade of the 1960s, yet marciano gets murdered in that era?


Im sure if Chuck Wepner, Jose Roman, and Ron Stander can crack the top 10 in the 1970s...then marciano would hardly be murdered.


and the 1980s? Didnt a 5'11 man make a living out of beating the snot out of top contenders?

[Bummy Davis]

Johnson, langford and Mcvea....sorry but Marciano would punish them all and win by KO........and he would also have KO;d Sam Salt Peter who was 65 lbs overweight and Fat Eddie Chambers who was at least 40-50 lbs lbs over weight........discrace but some guy will say a 250 lb Heavy would beat a 189lb heavy....these Fatties cant fight 3 rds without huffing and puffin...get to the gym and dedicate and NO donuts

[Dempsey1238]

I pretty sure Rock or Sam(Langford) would have beating these two at the same time.

[Seamus]

Seamus,

Watch Langford vs Lang, and you see Sam has plenty of skills. Marciano was considered the crudest champion of all time in his day, and this dates back to the champions of the late 1890's. Yet Marciano despite his crudeness Ko'd what you view as far more skilled boxers of the 1950’s. I think a few fighters from the 1890’s-1920’s could do the same to Charles, Walcott or Layne.

In short, if you got power, stamina, and chin you are always dangerous at heavyweight. Sam had that and some skills too.

Dude, I was speaking of McVea not Langford in this regard. Get your Sam's correct.

[Mendoza]

Dude, I was speaking of McVea not Langford in this regard. Get your Sam's correct.

What in Sam hill was I talking about? I agree with you, one Sam is a raw as green eggs and ham, the other had good skills.

[McGrain]

Bullshit. He never KO'd a single, credible great fighter.

Nor did Earnie Shavers. Do you think he can punch?

Mike Tyson. No great fighters stopped. Do you think he can punch?

Bob Sattersfield didn't Ko a "single, great fighter". Do you think he can punch?

How about Julian Jackson? No great fighters on his ko ledger. Guess he can't punch?

Jimmy Wilde...what great fighters did he KO?

I'm all for questioning the status quo, but you push. Your insistance that McVey is not a puncher on the grounds he has no KO's over the best he fought is embarrassing, frankly.

[he grant]

LIke I said, Marciano guys are off the chart ... facts don't matter ...

Marciano was a very good defensive fighter? How many photos of him post fight all busted up do you need to question this one?

Wills beat Langford for the for the first time as a novice ... nonsense. Wills was 25 years old and had been a pro for over five years ..


Arguments are so inconsistent ... so many heavyweight champs could have beaten Wills ... how do you know ? What "FILM" are you basing this on ... definately not his bout with Dempsey since Jack avoided him like the plague.

I asked you to name the best fighters Marciano beat and the biggest punchers he faced. Since you claim him near unbeatable with the greatest of chins I ask who did he prove this against. I'm still waiting for the answer which you have twice avoided.

Ever hear of Ted Lowry? He had Rocky staggered three times in their bout and on the very of a knockout ... Ted was not a ring immortal... sorry , no film but look up the clippings ...

You are right, I forgot to add 37 year old Joe Louis to the list of 38 year old Walcott, 33 year old Ezzard Charles (with over 100 fights of mileage), 40 plus year old Moore .. to Rocky's best opponents list ...great names, all at the end of their careers or past their primes ...Marciano on Louis "I was surprised that he had nothing on his right hand, nothing" . Yes Louis has great KO's on his record, just not the Louis that fought Marciano. Walcott never looked better in his career than the night he teed off on Marciano ... and he was 38 years old ... using your logic of evolution that would be like a 45 year old fighter today, with better diet and training habits, pounding on Rocky ...

How do you know that Walcott and Charles had moves other fighters never saw before .. the statement is purely speculation ... you make these points like you have any sort of proof ...


Talking about crude, read the coverage on Marciano from his day .... I'm not saying Jeffries or Sharkey were not crude but will say that Joe Gans, Phili Jack O'Brien, Jack Blackburn, Jack Johnson, Joe Jeannette, Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, the Gibbons brothers and many others were highly skilled ... Johnson was universially recognized as a defensive master up until the time of his death in 1946. Blackburn trained Joe Louis (Was he crude?) Jeannette opened and ran a gym in New Jersey where he was known as one of the top, most desired trainers in the counrty. This was stated by Braddock among others that trained there. Ray Arcel up till the time of his death rated Leonard over Duran. I can go on and on ...

Marciano was a warrior with tremendous heart, a great punch, terrific stamina and a very good chin. I rate him as a top ten or so under 200 pounds. However he did not walk on water. He did get tired, did not throw more punches per round than any other figher that ever lived and was hurt on numerous occassions through out his career. In addition to his skills his legacy benefits from exceptional timing , well made decisions and ethnic pride. Giving him all the respect due him I do not see him going the distance in a bout with Langford who I view as a cut above. This is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

[Minotauro]

Bullshit. He never KO'd a single, credible great fighter. Marciano KO'd 4 of them.

I'm sorry, by the 50's boxing was far and away more advanced than it was in the early part of the century. There is a mass-delusional scenario occurring here regarding the quality of some of these 1895-1920 fighters. On the film we have, Langford impresses, Johnson show flashes and the rest look like rank amateurs. I do not regard much of Langford's contemporaries as anything but "good for their era". They could not cope with Walcott or Charles or Moore, let alone Rex Layne. I know this is sacrilege in the parts but after a few decades around the sport, it's the way I sees it.

Its not bullshit try reading the post before replying you might not look so clueless in the future. McVea is mentioned because of his power not quality if someone stood up to shoots from Mac Foster, Tommy Morrison, Bert Copper or Conney would that not be impressive yet how many quality opponents did they stop? It a matter of Langford taking a very powerful heavyweight best punchers and being unfazed it has little to do with era, simply power.

[Mendoza]

LIke I said, Marciano guys are off the chart ... facts don't matter ...

Marciano was a very good defensive fighter? How many photos of him post fight all busted up do you need to question this one?

Wills beat Langford for the for the first time as a novice ... nonsense. Wills was 25 years old and had been a pro for over five years ..

Arguments are so inconsistent ... so many heavyweight champs could have beaten Wills ... how do you know ? What "FILM" are you basing this on ... definately not his bout with Dempsey since Jack avoided him like the plague.

I asked you to name the best fighters Marciano beat and the biggest punchers he faced. Since you claim him near unbeatable with the greatest of chins I ask who did he prove this against. I'm still waiting for the answer which you have twice avoided.

Ever hear of Ted Lowry? He had Rocky staggered three times in their bout and on the very of a knockout ... Ted was not a ring immortal... sorry , no film but look up the clippings ...

You are right, I forgot to add 37 year old Joe Louis to the list of 38 year old Walcott, 33 year old Ezzard Charles (with over 100 fights of mileage), 40 plus year old Moore .. to Rocky's best opponents list ...great names, all at the end of their careers or past their primes ...Marciano on Louis "I was surprised that he had nothing on his right hand, nothing" . Yes Louis has great KO's on his record, just not the Louis that fought Marciano. Walcott never looked better in his career than the night he teed off on Marciano ... and he was 38 years old ... using your logic of evolution that would be like a 45 year old fighter today, with better diet and training habits, pounding on Rocky ...

How do you know that Walcott and Charles had moves other fighters never saw before .. the statement is purely speculation ... you make these points like you have any sort of proof ...

Talking about crude, read the coverage on Marciano from his day .... I'm not saying Jeffries or Sharkey were not crude but will say that Joe Gans, Phili Jack O'Brien, Jack Blackburn, Jack Johnson, Joe Jeannette, Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, the Gibbons brothers and many others were highly skilled ... Johnson was universially recognized as a defensive master up until the time of his death in 1946. Blackburn trained Joe Louis (Was he crude?) Jeannette opened and ran a gym in New Jersey where he was known as one of the top, most desired trainers in the counrty. This was stated by Braddock among others that trained there. Ray Arcel up till the time of his death rated Leonard over Duran. I can go on and on ...

Marciano was a warrior with tremendous heart, a great punch, terrific stamina and a very good chin. I rate him as a top ten or so under 200 pounds. However he did not walk on water. He did get tired, did not throw more punches per round than any other figher that ever lived and was hurt on numerous occassions through out his career. In addition to his skills his legacy benefits from exceptional timing , well made decisions and ethnic pride. Giving him all the respect due him I do not see him going the distance in a bout with Langford who I view as a cut above. This is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Mostly agree with this.

[mcvey]

Thanx Chris! That means alot. I think I have changed a bit over the preceding months.






We are in total agreement Seamus. Although i would include jack dempsey in the "looks very good" list






We have our own two eyes to see, and its quite clear not only is marciano not crude, but he is deceptivley skilled and has a unique style that is unmatched in history. I would also argue that many great boxing minds of the past did not consider marciano crude. Angelo Dundee for example constantly referred to marciano as being very good defensivley. Charlie Goldman made rocky on film look far from crude. You want crude, take a look at max baer or jim jeffries on film. Even Tom Sharkey looks extremley crude. I have a couple police gazette issues and they refer to jeffries as "crude".





I dont think so. Charles and Walcott do amazing techniques on film that fighters from 1890-1920 had never seen before. they would be way overmatched by charles and walcotts much more developed boxing techniques. High gaurd, triple jabs, combinations, head movement, slick upperbody movement....fighters from 1890-1920 had never seen this stuff before and charles and walcott were the BEST at it. There is a reason james toney and bernard hopkins study jersey joe walcott vs Ezzard charles fights on film, and not james corbett vs peter courtney.

Charley Goldman is on record as saying Marciano was the crudest boxer he ever handled.Sam Silverman ,who promoted a lot of Marciano's fights saidt that Rocky could struggle as much against a third rater as a top liner. This isn't to say that Marciano was not not effective -just some blundering pug, he trained to a purpose for example his ko over Walcott in the second fight was planned and practised for,Rocky knew how to use stategy to expose an opponent to his lethal shots .I have Ring magazines from Rocky's reign castigating him for his technical deficiences ,yet he allways produced the goods.Walcott said he wasnt hard to tag ,but that he was difficult to catch with a really hard shot.
On Langford,while it is true that Johnson was a relatively skinny heavy at 185 when he fought Langford ,it must be remembered that Sam only weighed 156 for that fight.
Bottom line is Langford was a great ,great fighter, maybe the best p4p and I rarely use the word great , but he wasn't necessarily a very great Heavyweight, whereas Marciano would be in most peoples top 10.
I think Marciano would beat him.

[Seamus]

Nor did Earnie Shavers. Do you think he can punch?

Mike Tyson. No great fighters stopped. Do you think he can punch?

McVea never stopped a Larry Holmes, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Razor Ruddock, Mike Spinks or even a Trevor Berbick. Not even close.


How about Julian Jackson? No great fighters on his ko ledger. Guess he can't punch?

Did Terry Norris get dis-invited from the Hall of Fame? Seriously.



I'm all for questioning the status quo, but you push. Your insistance that McVey is not a puncher on the grounds he has no KO's over the best he fought is embarrassing, frankly.

No, the canonization of a fighter who would be distinctly ordinary in the modern era is embarrassing.

y'all enjoy the kool-aid.

[McGrain]

McVea never stopped a Larry Holmes, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Razor Ruddock, Mike Spinks or even a Trevor Berbick. Not even close.

None of these fighters are great, which was YOUR criteria.



Did Terry Norris get dis-invited from the Hall of Fame? Seriously.

Now it's "Hall of Fame"?



No, the canonization of a fighter who would be distinctly ordinary in the modern era is embarrassing.

y'all enjoy the kool-aid.


Right, because that's the issue, isn't it? How McVey would do in 2009? What a joke.

[Seamus]

None of these fighters are great, which was YOUR criteria.


Did not they all hold a version of the belt? Who amongst McVea's KO victims approached any of these fighters in achievement or skill? Larry Holmes is not great? I will file that one away for my erudition.




Now it's "Hall of Fame"?


I would also pick a prime Terry Norris to beat McVea head to head. Such is the development of the sport.





Right, because that's the issue, isn't it? How McVey would do in 2009? What a joke.

I believe this thread is referencing the 1950's, which is decidedly the modern era.

[he grant]

Would you pick Terry Norris, Mike McCallum or Thomas Hearns to beat Jack Johnson?

[McGrain]

Did not they all hold a version of the belt? Who amongst McVea's KO victims approached any of these fighters in achievement or skill? Larry Holmes is not great? I will file that one away for my erudition.


You are now ranking guys who have held "a version of the belt" - not even "world champion - but guys who held a "version of the belt - as indicators of great punching power in fighters who claim these scalps.

Let me have a quick think about this.


:lol:

You've gone from "greatness" to "hall of fame" to "successful in the modern era" to "holding a version of the belt". Would you like to backpedal any further?





I believe this thread is referencing the 1950's, which is decidedly the modern era.


Eh? Why does that matter? We're talking about punching power. And whatever era it is you are talking about, McVey's likely success or otherwise is 100% irrelevant in judging McVey's power. Which was my point.

[Maxmomer]

Marciano was a warrior with tremendous heart, a great punch, terrific stamina and a very good chin. I rate him as a top ten or so under 200 pounds. However he did not walk on water. He did get tired, did not throw more punches per round than any other figher that ever lived and was hurt on numerous occassions through out his career. In addition to his skills his legacy benefits from exceptional timing , well made decisions and ethnic pride. Giving him all the respect due him I do not see him going the distance in a bout with Langford who I view as a cut above. This is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

I agree. Some people seem to think that no matter what Marciano will always wear any opponent down because he couldn't be hurt and never got tired and threw 500 power punches a round. And another thing, are people honestly trying to disparage Langford's heavyweight comp to make Marciano look better? Sad. To be honest, I don't think Jeannette or McVey were all that great, but prime versions of those two are about as good of wins as wins against past prime versions of Walcott and Charles, and Wills is a good amount better than anyone Marciano beat and Langford KO'd him when he was past his best. Langford beat better fighters at around the weightclass than Marciano.

[SuzieQ49]

Maxmoner is under this illusion that rocky was a wear you down type puncher. At his best, Marciano was a one punch knockout artist.


I don't think Jeannette or McVey were all that great, but prime versions of those two are about as good of wins as wins against past prime versions of Walcott and Charles

depends on how past there prime you think walcott and charles were. I tend to think Walcott and Charles in the first fights though slightly past there best were still great fighters capable of beating many champions including mcvea and jenette. Were talking a whole new skill set in the 1950s. Mcvea wouldnt know what to do with Walcott Waltz and cutie counterpunches....hes never seen that before in his life except perhaps when he got his ass handed to him by jack johnson. When charles throws triple left hook combinations, and gives him in and out flurries and head movement looks and trap counter right hands, mcvea has never seen this stuff before. nor has jenette, they didnt have these techniqes back then.

[Seamus]

You are now ranking guys who have held "a version of the belt" - not even "world champion - but guys who held a "version of the belt - as indicators of great punching power in fighters who claim these scalps.

Let me have a quick think about this.


:lol:

You've gone from "greatness" to "hall of fame" to "successful in the modern era" to "holding a version of the belt". Would you like to backpedal any further?








Eh? Why does that matter? We're talking about punching power. And whatever era it is you are talking about, McVey's likely success or otherwise is 100% irrelevant in judging McVey's power. Which was my point.

I call bullshit again. My naming of these names is in regard to McVea's resume. Who did he KO that was better than those who I named?

Even McVea's recorded KO ratio is highly reliant on fighters who had under 10 fights recorded. And let's go further and rely on contemporary accounts of the actual good fighters he fought, who claimed he was a bit of a retreating violet in the ring, standing behind a jab, backing up, trying to land the one left hook and clinching. He never, in all the accounts I have read, sounded like the savage pursuer some claim.

[McGrain]

I call bullshit again. My naming of these names is in regard to McVea's resume. Who did he KO that was better than those who I named?

Well i'll call "bullshit", how about that?

You began by claiming that Mcvey had Ko'd no great fighters. Then you changed your mind when confronted to "hall of fame". By the end you are actually scrabbling around for "belt-holders". These are your words. They are in this thread. And these bizarre, random factors are supposed to PROVE "punching power". It's pathetic. What? What are you trying to say?

Even McVea's recorded KO ratio is highly reliant on fighters who had under 10 fights recorded.

:lol:

I'm glad your argument doesn't rest entirely upon Boxrec stats...oh...wait...

[Seamus]

Well i'll call "bullshit", how about that?

You began by claiming that Mcvey had Ko'd no great fighters. Then you changed your mind when confronted to "hall of fame". By the end you are actually scrabbling around for "belt-holders". These are your words. They are in this thread. And these bizarre, random factors are supposed to PROVE "punching power". It's pathetic. What? What are you trying to say?



You're floundering here, partner.

Upon which criteria of greatness do you chose to make your pitiful argument? I have offered three; you have offered none.

And no, I will not take the senile ramblings of some has been as self-evident proof of punching power. Tread back into the shallow waters.

[McGrain]

You're floundering here, partner.

Upon which criteria of greatness do you chose to make your pitiful argument? I have offered three; you have offered none.



Chum, you've offered three based on the same conclusion.

If a guy says.


1 - he's not great

2 - he's not hall of fame

3 - he doesn't have a belt

4 - he wouldn't succeed in 59/04


in ascending terms, that guy is a div.


That guy is you.

[Seamus]

Chum, you've offered three based on the same conclusion.

If a guy says.


1 - he's not great

2 - he's not hall of fame

3 - he doesn't have a belt

4 - he wouldn't succeed in 59/04


in ascending terms, that guy is a div.


That guy is you.

My point is/was/shall be that McVea never used his supposedly awesome facilities of punching power to defeat a decent opponent. My counter in support of Tyson was that he KO'd more than half a dozen fighters good enough to claim a belt, some extremely talented by evidence of film and, oh shit, I actually saw them fight. My counter in regards to Julian Jackson was that he KO'd Terry Norris, who was undoubtedly a great fucking fighter. Where does this argument escape you?

Have another pint. I don't think we're speaking the same language.

[McGrain]

My point is/was/shall be that McVea never used his supposedly awesome facilities of punching power to defeat a decent opponent.

Correct! That was what you said. Somehow - at some point - in your head, that has become the same as "not a great hitter". Nobody knows how.

My counter in support of Tyson was that he KO'd more than half a dozen fighters good enough to claim a belt, some extremely talented by evidence of film

Yeah, you are quite clear that "great" can devolve to "hall of fame" can devolve to "holding a belt" as it suits you. I doubt anybody missed that. Are you ready? Here it comes. Breath in -

TYSON IS A BETTER PUNCHER THAN MCVEY.

Wow. Did did it feel good? That's a really serious concession. Is it? No? Everyone know that already? But how could they? Tyson never KO'd a "great fighter", did he? So can this be true? Tell us!


and, oh shit, I actually saw them fight.

I think this boils down to it with you. Although the rest of us have seen McVey fight, or something.

My counter in regards to Julian Jackson was that he KO'd Terry Norris, who was undoubtedly a great fucking fighter.

Undoubtedly? No doubt? Hmmm. Well, he didn't make my 100. Or sweet scientists one hudnred. Or the Ring's 80 of the last 80 years. For me? Undoubtedly, greateness stopped at the sort of Tits (Trinidad) level, around 80-95. What critereia are using for Norris's undounted greatness? :lol: Hall of fame? That's what you metioned in your post. Mmmmm, McGuingan will be pleased.

Where does this argument escape you?

Uh? The part...with the greatness...uh...yeah...


Have another pint. I don't think we're speaking the same language.


Undoubted.

Keep it up. It's got you nowhere on this board.

[Seamus]

Correct! That was what you said. Somehow - at some point - in your head, that has become the same as "not a great hitter". Nobody knows how.



Yeah, you are quite clear that "great" can devolve to "hall of fame" can devolve to "holding a belt" as it suits you..


Upon which criteria would you qualify a great hitter. After three requests, you have yet to answer this. I have offered some nominal criteria which you have bristled at. However, they are decent criteria none the less, and far better than your hearsay of old folks.

Tyson never KO'd a "great fighter", did he? So can this be true? Tell us!

Uhh... He Ko'd Larry Fucking Holmes. He Ko'd near half a dozen belt holders, guys with real records, not bar room brawlers of the likes of McVea's victims. Where do you lose the logic in this argument?




I think this boils down to it with you. Although the rest of us have seen McVey fight, or something.

In this context, I was referring to having seen live... i.e. blood splattering from the ring 25 feet away.



Undoubtedly? No doubt? Hmmm. Well, he didn't make my 100. Or sweet scientists one hudnred. Or the Ring's 80 of the last 80 years. For me? Undoubtedly, greateness stopped at the sort of Tits (Trinidad) level, around 80-95. What critereia are using for Norris's undounted greatness? :lol: Hall of fame? That's what you metioned in your post. Mmmmm, McGuingan will be pleased.


Who are you people? You hold no weight with me. We are all pedants on a web board. I don't even care if one or two of you has a book to your name. Since Liebling, there hasn't been a decent writer on boxing anyway. In regards to Norris, he was far more accomplished and skilled than anyone McVea ever beat. Your assertion was that Jackson never KO'd a great fighter, yet he KO'd a fighter who was heads and shoulders above McVea's best victims. Where is the disconnect for you here?
.[/QUOTE]

Cheers, brosephus. I'm going out for the night.

[McGrain]

Upon which criteria would you qualify a great hitter. After three requests, you have yet to answer this. I have offered some nominal criteria which you have bristled at. However, they are decent criteria none the less, and far better than your hearsay of old folks.

My criteria? For pure punching power? This is the first request i'm aware of, i apologise.

- ko's at contender level

- accounts

- film

McVvey scores well on all but film, of which there isn't much.

And dont' be shy, you've offered near ENDLESS criteria for punching power.



Uhh... He Ko'd Larry Fucking Holmes.

Well. I didn't actually think you'd be this stupid. I am overfuckingwhelmed. Really? You're going to talk about Holmes? So if McVey had KO'd some old, retired HW ex-champ you would acknowledge, "this guy can punch!".

In a series of joke posts, this is the biggest joke.

Tyson has never KO'd a great fighter.




In this context, I was referring to having seen live... i.e. blood splattering from the ring 25 feet away.

There's probably a very elite boxing forum that you can join where guys only discuss guys they have seen live. Unless you wish to be taken literally - unlikely given some of these posts - and only discuss boxing with other men whom have been splattered by blood.





Who are you peoeple?

We are your peers.

[Maxmomer]

I enjoy this thread.

[Seamus]

I enjoy this thread.


It totally rules!

[Boilermaker]

Rocky is at a big disadvantage against most of the older fighters, imo, due to the changing skills required as boxing modernises. Most people make the mistake of talking about evolution of styles as if it is an improvement, but it isnt, it is mostly just a reaction to rule changes.

If you look at Rockys style (and imo, he is probably the most technically correct fighter i have ever seen), it is basic and simple. He holds his hands properly, distributes his weight properly, throws his punches, getting his weight behind every punch perfectly, and tries to knock out his opponent with every punch. after throwing his punches, he resets himself and then does the same thing again. Always technically perfect. He is not normally thrown by his opponent slipping and landing and because of his perfect technique, it makes it hard for him to be caught clean and even if he doesnt hit the target perfectly clean, he still has all his weight behind the punch and it still wears his opponents down. When you combine this with his great stamina it is tough to beat.

The problem Rocky has is that old fighters (and more so rules and referees allow it) will clinch Rocky after he throws his punches and they will wrestle with him, and even hit and strike in the clinches. This will break up Rocky's rhythmn, and mean that he wont keep the same work rate, and even if he does he wont have the opportunity to throw as many punches with his full weight behind it, like he normally does. I think this is a massive disadvantage for Rocky.

IN saying that though, Lanford is probably the most modern of the older fighters and he generally tended to rely more on striking than clinching from what i can gather. If this is true then it would definitely work to Rockys advantage. I think that this would help Rocky. One thing is for sure, this would be a great fight. I think Rocky probably nudges a close one, but it could go either way. I dont think Rocky would be able to wear sam down for the big knockout, like he did with so many others.

Jack Johnson, Jim Jeffries, maybe even McVey or some other earlier fighters may be even more stylistically advantaged against Rocky, imo.