Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-24-2009, 11:40 PM   #31
klompton
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,834
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

langford was fat. they always talked about how big his gut was when he was fighting at HW.
klompton is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-25-2009, 06:02 AM   #32
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,876
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frazier Hook View Post
No Langford was 17 and Gans was 29.....Langford would of won the Lightweight title but didnt due to coming in at 136lb just a pound over the limt.
Langford never knew his exact date of birth ,he picked one out of a hat.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 06:27 AM   #33
Ted Spoon
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

A lot of it was to do with his body type; long arms, barrel-bodied.

When Langford started to fill out he could really put the weight away in that stocky frame of his. From 140-175lbs he was at his absolute peak.

When around the 200lbs mark he was described as appearing "fleshy".
Ted Spoon is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 06:33 AM   #34
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

Quote:
Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe View Post
Is this a different Hookie to the one who posted on BI?
It is I. How you doing? I'm just as grumpy as ever lol
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 06:38 AM   #35
bodhi
So I can die easy ...
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 1337
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookie View Post
OMG, are you serious? I was talking about a % of bodyweight increase... not the actual weight increase.

40% is 40% no matter if the fighter weighs 105Lbs. or 250Lbs. Are you suggesting that a 250Lb. fighter can handle a 40% increase better than a 105Lb. fighter?

All I was pointing out was that 160-225 is a 40% increase and 140-190 is a 35% increase. This means that the 160-225 jump is more... not because 65Lbs is more than 50Lbs, but because 40% is larger than 35%. Get it? I hope so lol

It's really not a big deal anyway. Langford was a great fighter. I was just using Toney as an example of a fighter who has done somewhat similar things in terms of performing well in several weight classes.
My dear friend, get yourself some manners.

It is a difference. 40% at hw do not mean as much as 35% at a lower weight class because there are these diminishing returns. 7 pounds more or less does not mean much at hw while it's a whole weightclass when you look into the lower ones. There is a reason for that.
bodhi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 08:41 AM   #36
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,606
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

AS usual Ted Spoon nailed it !
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 11:17 AM   #37
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,482
vCash: 500
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
My dear friend, get yourself some manners.

It is a difference. 40% at hw do not mean as much as 35% at a lower weight class because there are these diminishing returns. 7 pounds more or less does not mean much at hw while it's a whole weightclass when you look into the lower ones. There is a reason for that.

I don't think I'm being rude. I also can't believe people still want to fight about this... it's somewhat off topic.

Again 40% is 40%. I agree that a 7Lb jump, from 140-147 for example, is more impressive than 168-175... but I'm talking about percentages.

140 + 40%= 196Lbs

168 + 40%=208Lbs

wouldn't you consider that equal?
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 11:29 AM   #38
Sweet Pea
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: I never sleep, cuz sleep is the cousin of death
Posts: 13,604
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hookie View Post

140 + 40%= 196Lbs

168 + 40%=208Lbs

wouldn't you consider that equal?
No, considering your math is a good ways off.
Sweet Pea is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2009, 12:57 PM   #39
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,606
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How did Sam Langford..

I feel today Langford would have fought at 160 - 168. Fo r years he was the best middle in the world but all the top guys refused to fight him .
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013