View Single Post
Old 01-20-2013, 06:30 PM   #30
ESB Addict
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Originally Posted by Pachilles View Post
Look at it from this perspective though. At only 16 losses, Rober****s stretching to excuse Duran's blemishes, "he needed a poo" has had to have been pulled out of the bag, and thats at only 16 losses.

At worst i think you have to assume Langford was very beatable. Dangerous, but beatable.
With respect, I don't believe you quite understand the context. There was no protected amateur start for Langford - he learned on the job, from lightweight, and competed on even terms with some lower weight formidables - Dave Holly, Jack Blackburn, Joe Walcott. Weekly or monthly schedule, remember.

After losing to Jack Johnson, who outweighed Langford by thirty pounds, he started coming into his own as a matured large middleweight/light heavyweight. That's where the streak started: 81-4-5.

Now... Realise this. Langford didn't just fight the odd bout where his opponent outweighed him - he was doing all the time, and at that same frequency where sometimes there would be only two or three weeks between grueling battles. Sam McVey? Joe Jeanette? Harry Wills? All naturally larger than Langford. It got to the stage where anyone who was actually the same size got obliterated, like Philadelphia Jack O' Brien, Jeff Clark and Kid Norfolk (all Hall of Famers - EDIT: not Clark, though he should be).

Langford ended up as a natural light heavyweight, blown up to 190lbs+, 5ft 7in boxer up against natural 200lbs+ fighters month in, month out. He ended up losing his sight near the end of his career and suffered the fate of many a bad decision against him, and having to fight the same quality (and larger than he) opponents again and again. Nobody was out to protect him.

Of course, beatable. As Janitor says, anyone would be in those circumstances.

Last edited by Manassa; 01-20-2013 at 06:41 PM.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote