Langford would beat every incumbant ring champ from 147 to 175 [Archive]

McGrain

07-31-2007, 06:22 PM

Well, i disagree with your choice at 154. Sergei Dzinziruk is the best at that weight. Sadly he isn´t even shown on German TV, where he is based. Even here we only get to see some highlights of his fights because he isn´t marketable. Very cautious guy who doesn´t speak English or German.

You have a case, of course, but it's not my choice. Ring's 154 title is vacant, but Spinks is no.1 contendor, so I ran with him.

janitor

07-31-2007, 06:28 PM

Yes or no? We'll use the ring champs I thought:

147 - Floyd Mayweather

154 - Cory Spinks (No.1)

160 - Jermain Taylor

168 - Joe Calzaghe (F*ck it)

175 - Bernard Hopkins.

Some interesting ones.

Some wonderful fighters.

Why stop at 175 lbs?

Mormeck would be an easy nights work for him.

I would pick him to beat any of the curent heavyweight beltholders.

McGrain

07-31-2007, 06:31 PM

Why stop at 175 lbs?

:lol:

Some people are just never happy.

Anyway...answer the question, what do you think about those guys? And if you think he takes them all, tell us how one of them goes, and who has the best chance.

janitor

07-31-2007, 07:09 PM

:lol:

Some people are just never happy.

Anyway...answer the question, what do you think about those guys? And if you think he takes them all, tell us how one of them goes, and who has the best chance.

147 - Floyd Mayweather
When Langford was fighting at welterweight he was 18 years old and in the infancy of his profesional career. Amazingly he did beat all time greats like Joe Gans and Joe Walcott but this has to be chalked partly up to the fact that he was bellow their radar at this point and fighting them only days after their previous bout.

If Mayweather knows the level of the threat that he is facing and prepares acordingly then he should be able to win. The Hatton fight should answer a few questions on whether he could stand up to the embryonic Langford.

154 - Cory Spinks (No.1)
Bad news foe Spinks. By now Langford is in his mid 20s and already beating up heavyweights. Spinks is toast.

160 - Jermain Taylor
Same story as with Spinks.

168 - Joe Calzaghe (F*ck it)
Calzaghe might have a chance of edging Langford at this weight especialy if he is part of his hectic schedule. again we would be better able to judge the liklihood of this after the Kesler fight. Whatever the outcome it is probable that Langford would break him down with a sustained body attack.

The 185 lb Langford would make toast out of Calzaghe and anybody listed below.

175 - Bernard Hopkins.
Hopkins might have a chance against the 160lb Langford but at 175 Sam is virtualy unbeatable.

From this weight upward Langfors sweeps the pool today.

McGrain

07-31-2007, 07:23 PM

175 - Bernard Hopkins.
Hopkins might have a chance against the 160lb Langford but at 175 Sam is virtualy unbeatable.

From this weight upward Langfors sweeps the pool today.

What lhw would you put in with Langford with a view to beating him, all time?

Also, what is it about Langford's game that is enhanced at the heavier weights? In what ways does he grow as a fighter as he grows in weight?

My feeling was always that he was punching hard enough to break backs at 160-175...

Shake

07-31-2007, 08:11 PM

mr. magoo

07-31-2007, 08:28 PM

What about Archie Moore?

I suppose it would have to depend on which stage of Moore's career we're talking about, given that he fought pretty much forever. I'm guessing that a prime Moore and a peak Langford would be a very good fight, but I don't know enough about either to choose a winner.

China_hand_Joe

07-31-2007, 08:29 PM

We know next to nothing about Sam, so lets not pick him over Calzaghe -fullstop-

McGrain

07-31-2007, 08:35 PM

We know next to nothing about Sam, so lets not pick him over Calzaghe -fullstop-

We know some of the guys he was in with, we have some footage.

mr. magoo

07-31-2007, 08:35 PM

We know next to nothing about Sam, so lets not pick him over Calzaghe -fullstop-

Correction,

YOU may know nothing about Sam Langford, therefore YOU, should use discretion about how you determine the outcomes to various fantasy matchups. I don't know much about him myself, but then I'm also not telling others what they should think either.

Oh I almost forgot, -Fullstop-

Shake

07-31-2007, 08:47 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

janitor

08-01-2007, 05:45 AM

We know next to nothing about Sam, so lets not pick him over Calzaghe -fullstop-

We know next to nothing about how Calzaghe would fare against another all time great so lets not pick him over Langford -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

08-01-2007, 05:50 AM

So how does Langford beat Calzaghe then -questionmark- Why should I ignore the considerable doubt about Langfords chances in this fight and pick him -fullstop-

janitor

08-01-2007, 05:56 AM

[quote=McGrain]What lhw would you put in with Langford with a view to beating him, all time?

Against a prepared Langford I think you I think you have to look to all time greats. We are talking Dillon, Greb, Tunney, Charles.

Also, what is it about Langford's game that is enhanced at the heavier weights? In what ways does he grow as a fighter as he grows in weight?

The point when Langford really gets into his stride and starts dominating the competition comes abut the time when he has grown into a light heavyweight body. It is not so much that his game is enhanced more that he is starting to peak in terms of experience.

This is about the time that Jack Johnson decides that he dose not want to re match him.

My feeling was always that he was punching hard enough to break backs at 160-175...

And beyond. Dont ever doubt it.

janitor

08-01-2007, 06:00 AM

So how does Langford beat Calzaghe then -questionmark- Why should I ignore the considerable doubt about Langfords chances in this fight and pick him -fullstop-

Primarily because he is far more proven against all time greats than Calzaghe. Langford has been beating pound for pound greats from his 18th birthday at lightweight all the way up to heavyweight. He is about as proven as you can get.

Lets not try to make Joe run before he can walk here. What makes you think that he is better than Kid Norfolk say or a whole host of other Langford victims?

It is also only fair to ask how his hands will hold up with 4-5oz gloves.

janitor

08-01-2007, 06:04 AM

I see plenty of ATG's winning against him LHW and up. Hagler, also.

None of the men you mentioned. I find Langford's defense to be his weakness, and his athletic ability frightening. Foyd might have been able to counter his way to a decision against a young version.

I don't think that the film dose justice to the subtle aspects of Langfords defence like head movment.

Contemporary acounts sugest that he was verry adept with these.

China_hand_Joe

08-01-2007, 06:22 AM

For whatever reasons Langford also lost to a load of fighters it is safe to assume Joe Calzaghe would muller -fullstop- But since Calzaghe hasn't beat or lost to anyone of note, we simply cannot make a pick, except one based on common sense (having examined his record, taken into account the year and having seen the limited footage), where we fairly confidently pick Calzaghe -fullstop-

Is the only justification of you view about Calzaghe's hands holding up -questionmark- No head movement will save you from Calzaghe's slaps -fullstop-

China_hand_Joe

08-01-2007, 06:39 AM

a) or b) -questionmark-

Langford was able to win despite being horribly out-weighed

a) Langford was a great boxer but his large opposition were, well kind of poorish

or

b) Langford was Calzaghe-like and beat up huge fighters, skilled by todays standards who would dominate today -questionmark-

Which do you think allowed these size mismatches to actually happen -questionmark-

McGrain

08-01-2007, 06:48 AM

b) Langford was Calzaghe-like and beat up huge fighters, skilled by todays standards who would dominate today -questionmark-

This one! (sort of - might not put it exactly like you did)

I take it you've checked him out, yeah? I don't actually agree with Janitor, I think the footage we have shows an astonishing fighter and an extrememly tough man.

China_hand_Joe

08-01-2007, 07:14 AM

I think the footage we have shows an astonishing fighter and an extrememly tough man.I would agree 100% on that -fullstop-

McGrain

08-01-2007, 07:31 AM

I would agree 100% on that -fullstop-

:yikes

Jack

08-01-2007, 07:31 AM

It's absolutely insane to suggest a fighter whose style we have little knowledge of, could beat a whole load of top class fighters. Maybe you could say he'd beat Mayweather, but to go all out and suggest he'd beat Wlad or any above average heavyweight is ridiculous.

And whilst looking at his resume of fighters he beat, be fair and look at the losses on his record. He lost to fighters who had losing records and were probably awful fighters. You can't just say "He beat all these ATG's", whilst ignoring he lost to men who wouldn't break the top 20 in their division today. Like Larry Temple.

janitor

08-01-2007, 10:59 AM

[quote=China_hand_Joe]For whatever reasons Langford also lost to a load of fighters it is safe to assume Joe Calzaghe would muller -fullstop-
There is no question about the reason Langford lost to those fighters.

If Calzaghe fought to Langfords schedule taking on world class fighters only days apart he would be a criple after six months. His hands would not have the durability never mind his body.

But since Calzaghe hasn't beat or lost to anyone of note, we simply cannot make a pick, except one based on common sense (having examined his record, taken into account the year and having seen the limited footage), where we fairly confidently pick Calzaghe -fullstop-

To play devils advocate-

What if Calzaghe gets demolished by Mickel Kesler.

Would you still pick him over Langford?

Is the only justification of you view about Calzaghe's hands holding up -questionmark- No head movement will save you from Calzaghe's slaps -fullstop-

Langford was prety good at dealing with guys like Calzaghe. I would expect him to deploy a sustained body attack and chip away breaking him down.

janitor

08-01-2007, 11:02 AM

[quote=Jack]It's absolutely insane to suggest a fighter whose style we have little knowledge of, could beat a whole load of top class fighters.

We know Langfords style prety well.

Maybe you could say he'd beat Mayweather, but to go all out and suggest he'd beat Wlad or any above average heavyweight is ridiculous.

I am suggesting it big time.

He lost to fighters who had losing records and were probably awful fighters. You can't just say "He beat all these ATG's", whilst ignoring he lost to men who wouldn't break the top 20 in their division today. Like Larry Temple.

Most of the records of fighters like Temple are missing. It is highly doubtfull that he actualy had a loosing record.

Jack

08-01-2007, 11:16 AM

We know Langfords style prety well.I don't think so. What footage is there? It's like Fitz. you get a very basic look at what he did, but other than that, because of the erratic speed and very poor quality of the time, you just cannot see true details. His stance and other basic things, maybe, but there is no way you can examine his work.
I am suggesting it big time.Why? Fighting today he wouldn't be considered the more talented boxer against fighters like Chagaev. If it was in his rules, maybe, but I feel the huge size disadvantage would give him too large of a handicap. I doubt he'd stand a chance against Wlad under his won rules, never mind with a complete different ref style, large gloves and other stuff like that. He would have every disadvantage against Wlad or another heavyweight.
Most of the records of fighters like Temple are missing. It is highly doubtfull that he actualy had a loosing record.If that's the case, the chances are it was against local toughmen. If the opponent was of note, the fight would have been recorded by someone.

McGrain

08-01-2007, 11:19 AM

I don't think so. What footage is there? It's like Fitz. you get a very basic look at what he did, but other than that, because of the erratic speed and very poor quality of the time, you just cannot see true details. His stance and other basic things, maybe, but there is no way you can examine his work.

Have a trawl around YouTube bro, he's on there and that stuff alone gives you a pretty good feel. Be worth your while. He's different.

China_hand_Joe

08-01-2007, 11:22 AM

What if Calzaghe gets demolished by Mickel Kesler.

Would you still pick him over Langford?

Calzaghe will lose to Kessler, Kessler also hammers Langford IMO -fullstop-

McGrain

08-01-2007, 11:27 AM

Calzaghe will lose to Kessler, Kessler also hammers Langford IMO -fullstop-

I think i've seen more footage of Langford than Kessler in terms of minutes, freakishly.

Nevertheless, Langford KO1 Kessler :good

Jack

08-01-2007, 11:28 AM

Have a trawl around YouTube bro, he's on there and that stuff alone gives you a pretty good feel. Be worth your while. He's different.
Oh no, I have seen him, but I don't feel the quality of the video is good enough to fully understand his style, you know?

McGrain

08-01-2007, 11:34 AM

Oh no, I have seen him, but I don't feel the quality of the video is good enough to fully understand his style, you know?

Perhaps.

Bad Intentions posted some wonderful footage of him not long ago. Another poster, a good poster tackled him for being unable to cut of the ring properly. But what I saw was different, I pointed it out, and changed his mind.

Langford had his right foot just outside his mans left the entire round. Basically pegging him in without having to look for him whilst firing body shots. The guy was panicing and a bit clumsy, but Langford never once overextended - like even that other great offensive fighter of the time Dempsey sometimes did - never once left himself overly exposed.

Meanwhile, there was a passage of retreat left open, permentantly to Langford's left, his man's right. Langford wants his man to take this step to give him a chance at unloading a full-bore left, Lanfords best punch.

What I saw was a puncher in no rush because he was also an excellent ring general and boxer. I think he was serious, and i'm happy to commit to that from the limited amount i've seen, plus his record v great fighters.

janitor

08-01-2007, 12:21 PM

If that's the case, the chances are it was against local toughmen. If the opponent was of note, the fight would have been recorded by someone.

Not necisarily.

Sullivan and Jeffries had unrecorded bouts while they were the champion. A guy could easily get up to European level and not register on boxrec.

janitor

08-01-2007, 12:25 PM

Oh no, I have seen him, but I don't feel the quality of the video is good enough to fully understand his style, you know?

Jimmy Shimmy produced some slowed down footage of Langford which gives you aq prety good idea.

Also you can read contemporary acounts and compare them to the footage.

At the end of the day Langford is the kind of fighter where you will not get a sudden revalation and see the whole picture. It took me years to peice him together. Same with Fitzsimmons Griffo and other early fighters.