|
|
|
#4 |
|
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,722
vCash: 330 |
As a mw fight I'm picking Hagler.
Langford was nowhere near the force he would become as a hw. He was at his best as a 200 pound tank. I'm not even sold on his greatness as a lhw. |
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,305
vCash: 500 |
Hmm surprised by the answers. not sure where i land but a near blind knocked out a green tiger flowers in 2 rounds (in georgia i believe). Not sure what he weighed but that, along with the ketchel result, give me reason to think langford has a decent shot
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,305
vCash: 500 |
Quote:
just the fact that he was able to do that and knock out flowers makes me think he was extremely capable at 160. i'm skewed a little lighter with langford, i feel his best weight was probably 180-185 |
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,722
vCash: 330 |
Quote:
I think he hit his stride as a genuine hw when he was the outstanding challenger to Johnson. I haven't checked his record for a while so I'm unsure what he weighed between 1911 and 1915. But the weight during that time is when I'd say he was at his best. |
|
|
|
|
#14 | |
|
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Canada!!!!
Posts: 2,305
vCash: 500 |
Quote:
if he could beat gans and "draw" with walcott when he was lighter and younger, than by 160 he could have the physical tools (read: ridiculous strength), timing and power to give hagler hell. he may not be nearly as complete as he would become but i give him a shot |
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|