PDA

View Full Version : So why did Langford lose...

Russell
08-01-2007, 08:22 AM
Against Wills so many times?

Bad styles match-up, massive size difference, a lot of shorter fights near the end of their series...

What was it?
ChrisPontius
08-01-2007, 08:37 AM
First of all, Wills was a damn good fighter. If Dempsey didn't duck him, he might have been known as one of the better champions in history.
Second, as you pointed out, there was a big size difference.
And third, Langford had been in a lot of fights, had an eye problem and was past his best.
FlatNose
08-01-2007, 09:56 AM
Don't forget too, that Langford was not really a natural Heavyweight., and Wills was a full sized (especially for that time) big guy.
Russell
08-01-2007, 10:33 AM
Bah, sorry for the horrible spelling. It was early in the morning and I got some wired crossed.

The first few times they fought, it wasn't that far into Langford's career, was it?

And Dempsey was going to fight Wills, wasn't he? Wasn't Dempseys choice the fight didn't go through?
McGrain
08-01-2007, 10:49 AM
And Dempsey was going to fight Wills, wasn't he? Wasn't Dempseys choice the fight didn't go through?


That is such an interesting one. Dempsey was up for that fight, there can be little doubt of that, but although contracts were signed, I think that was more about press and leverage than actually seeing the fight through. Contractually it was so easy to walk away from that it was basically meaningless.

Dempsey would hav shown had the fight been made for serious money and I think he would have won.

However, Wills offer to fight Dempsey "on any street corner" was a serious one, I feel.

Wills was a great fighter. Possibly the best heavy not to lift the title...there are plenty of other guys from that sort of era who dispute that mind. Anyway, point is, no shame in a middleweight losing to a fighter like that.
Russell
08-01-2007, 10:51 AM
Yeah, I agree.

They fought like, nearly a dozen times though. Langford won a few, but I guess I just imagined he would of won more, seeing as what a great he is and what not.
Marciano Frazier
08-01-2007, 01:26 PM
Because, A. Langford was over the hill for most of their fights, and B. Wills was a top-notch fighter in his own right.
achillesthegreat
08-01-2007, 02:31 PM
Wills was a great big fighter and at his best. Langford was a great small fighter and at the end of his run.

I think the consensus is Wills was unlucky, he didn't get the Dempsey fight and he came about the end of a great era. On paper Langford should be rated highly, in turn Wills should be rated pretty highly too. Say top30.
janitor
08-01-2007, 03:51 PM
Also it is a moot point how many fights Langford lost.

He definitely won two (knockouts)

He probably lost six

The rest are a bit ambiguous.
Russell
08-01-2007, 03:53 PM
Also it is a moot point how many fights Langford lost.

He definitely won two (knockouts)

He probably lost six

The rest are a bit ambiguous.

Why don't the fights Langford lost mean anything...?
janitor
08-01-2007, 04:13 PM
Why don't the fights Langford lost mean anything...?

They do.

The series was however prety even for the first five bouts with the only knockout wins coming to Langford.

Beyond that Wills was arguably putting the stamp on Langford's decline.
Russell
08-01-2007, 05:58 PM
Ah, okay. Gotcha.
Cojimar 1945
08-01-2007, 07:02 PM
The deterioration that comes with aging would appear to have something to do with it.