How did Sam Langford..

[klompton]

langford was fat. they always talked about how big his gut was when he was fighting at HW.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Frazier Hook

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.

[Ted Spoon]

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".

[Hookie]

Originally Posted by China_hand_Joe

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

[bodhi]

Originally Posted by Hookie

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.

[he grant]

AS usual Ted Spoon nailed it !

[Hookie]

Originally Posted by bodhi

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?

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Hookie

140 + 40%= 196Lbs

168 + 40%=208Lbs

wouldn't you consider that equal?

No, considering your math is a good ways off.

[he grant]

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 .