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 12-14-2009, 11:58 PM   #1
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,133
vCash: 1000
Default Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

We know what it took to KO Sam. We know what Fitz had in the power department. Could he deliver the coup de grace or would the legendary skill and power of Langford win the day. Prime for Prime here.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-15-2009, 02:41 AM   #2
Sardu
RIP Mr. Bun: 2007-2012
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Good matchup here. I think Langford was similar in size to "Sailor" Tom Sharkey who Fitz handily defeated.... It is just that although he was tough as nails, was in in great condition, and strong as an ox - Sharkey was no where near as talented a fighter in all departments as Langford was.... Fitz was easily hit by Corbett and it would be no different against langford except that Langford was a devastating puncher. Corbett was not.

Langford KO 8 Fitzsimmons
Sardu is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 08:03 AM   #3
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,529
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

A hell of a fight but I favor Sam, slightly.
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 08:06 AM   #4
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,875
vCash: 75
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Langford looks better on the film I've seen. Faced the better Heavyweights as well.

Langford sparks him.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 11:24 AM   #5
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,300
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post
Langford looks better on the film I've seen. Faced the better Heavyweights as well.

Langford sparks him.
I dont know that Langford's opposition was any better than Fitz's.
Fitz faced Jeffries x2 Corbett,Johnson,Sharkey x2 Maher x2,Creedon.and Choynsky.Pretty good quality imo.
But I agree,Langford has the edge in this fight I think a late stoppage is on the cards.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 11:50 AM   #6
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,875
vCash: 75
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Wills
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 01:00 PM   #7
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 238
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

When two big hitters meet, the one with a significant edge in durability wins 9 times out of 10. Langford all the way.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 01:24 PM   #8
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 21,300
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleaman View Post
Wills
Was Wills better than Jeffries ,Johnson,Corbett,Sharkey ,or Choynsky?
A 39 year old Langford ,fat and half blind still went the distance with him ,and a 33 year old Sam kod Harry.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 04:05 PM   #9
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 930
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Quote:
Sardu #2
Fitz was easily hit by Corbett and it would be no different against langford except that Langford was a devastating puncher.
I think part of the reason -- part -- that Corbett hit Fitzsimmons was that Jim wasn't hitting hard, and it wasn't a points fight, so Fitzsimmons fought aggressively, defending himself about enough to avoid being put out but not really worrying about getting cut or scraped up. The other part of the reason Fitzsimmons got hit was that Corbett was a very good points puncher.

Fitzsimmons would have fought Langford different, and Langford probably wasn't the sort of points puncher Corbett was. So I don't think Langford would have landed on Fitz near as often as Corbett did. On the other hand, Langford had (or used) vastly more power than did Corbett, so Langford wouldn't have needed so many punches.
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 05:34 PM   #10
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,069
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

A few points about the fighters:

Some obvious similarities of style:

Both of these guys were among the greatest finishers the sport has ever seen. You only needed to make one mistake to be up sh1t creek and if you didnít oblige then they would create one for you.

They were both highly adaptable in their style and changed it dramatically according to the size and style of their opponent. If the man in front of them was smaller than them or lacked the power to hurt them then they ran him over. If their opponent was larger than them, and could crack then they used movement to avoid getting hit, while they boxed and tried to set up the finishing combo.

An obvious difference is that Fitzsimmons worked within much smaller margins of error in terms of his footwork than Langford. Langford would circle his opponent and dart in and out of range, while Fitz would make his man miss by as little as possible and would not step too far away from them. Comparing their footwork, it is important to note, that while both men gave up considerable weight, Fitz was generally not giving up huge amounts of height or reach while Langford was. This might have forced Langford to be more active in his footwork.

This fight would probably turn on who chose to fight as if he had the physical advantage (aggressively), who chose to fight as if he lacked the physical advantage (movement based strategy), and who could force the other guy into the strategy he didnít want of the two. My guess is that Langford would want to force the fight while Fitz might prefer to move and counter as far as he could. Langford would do this as much to prevent Fitz fighting the way he wanted to, and was most effective at as anything.

Langford seems to have been more busy and to have made more sustained use of combinations (this cannot be definitely proven). If this is true then this combined with Langfordís more vigorous footwork might have forced Fitzsimmons to fight a more aggressive fight which again might have played into Langfordís hands.

Both of them had incredible chins for their weight but Langfordís was like a bl***y cinder block. If it turns on durability then the smart money is on Langford. Physically Langford was about 10-15 lbs heavier at his peak, but when you factor in that he was 5íí shorter he becomes the bigger and more physically imposing man even if he is giving up height and reach.

My conclusion if that Langford would dictate the fight and win but with Fitzís finishing prowess it would have been a high risk strategy.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 05:40 PM   #11
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

I always think Fitz was more of a counter-puncher than a hit and mover at heavyweight surely this would help him aaginst langford as the speed difference would be much different between he and Langford than langford and Heavyweights meaning Fitz had the means to counter as Langford came in for his flurries.

Bt i dont know too much about Langford to comment on it in detail
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 05:47 PM   #12
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,069
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GPater11093 View Post
I always think Fitz was more of a counter-puncher than a hit and mover at heavyweight surely this would help him aaginst langford as the speed difference would be much different between he and Langford than langford and Heavyweights meaning Fitz had the means to counter as Langford came in for his flurries.
Fitz was a counterpuncher who made good use of movment but he would almost turn Tyson if the man in front of him was small or not a big hitter.

Langford was a mean counterpuncher in his own right and did not rush in carelesly if he thought his opponent was dangerous.

You can find cases of Jack Dempsey getting clocked coming in but can you find a case of Sam Langford getting clocked coming in by a heavyweight?
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 05:47 PM   #13
Boilermaker
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,961
vCash: 685
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor View Post
A few points about the fighters:

Some obvious similarities of style:

Both of these guys were among the greatest finishers the sport has ever seen. You only needed to make one mistake to be up sh1t creek and if you didnít oblige then they would create one for you.

They were both highly adaptable in their style and changed it dramatically according to the size and style of their opponent. If the man in front of them was smaller than them or lacked the power to hurt them then they ran him over. If their opponent was larger than them, and could crack then they used movement to avoid getting hit, while they boxed and tried to set up the finishing combo.

An obvious difference is that Fitzsimmons worked within much smaller margins of error in terms of his footwork than Langford. Langford would circle his opponent and dart in and out of range, while Fitz would make his man miss by as little as possible and would not step too far away from them. Comparing their footwork, it is important to note, that while both men gave up considerable weight, Fitz was generally not giving up huge amounts of height or reach while Langford was. This might have forced Langford to be more active in his footwork.

This fight would probably turn on who chose to fight as if he had the physical advantage (aggressively), who chose to fight as if he lacked the physical advantage (movement based strategy), and who could force the other guy into the strategy he didnít want of the two. My guess is that Langford would want to force the fight while Fitz might prefer to move and counter as far as he could. Langford would do this as much to prevent Fitz fighting the way he wanted to, and was most effective at as anything.

Langford seems to have been more busy and to have made more sustained use of combinations (this cannot be definitely proven). If this is true then this combined with Langfordís more vigorous footwork might have forced Fitzsimmons to fight a more aggressive fight which again might have played into Langfordís hands.

Both of them had incredible chins for their weight but Langfordís was like a bl***y cinder block. If it turns on durability then the smart money is on Langford. Physically Langford was about 10-15 lbs heavier at his peak, but when you factor in that he was 5íí shorter he becomes the bigger and more physically imposing man even if he is giving up height and reach.

My conclusion if that Langford would dictate the fight and win but with Fitzís finishing prowess it would have been a high risk strategy.
This is a great fight, i was actually going to start a similar thread but for time, but I think that this fight is wasted (from a classic forum view) as a standalone fight. Clearly it is a fight that needs to be a series of fights. Both fighters started out as lightweights and progressed through to Heavyweights. I would like to see a match at Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light heavyweight and Heavyweight fully divided and analysed by some of our historical posters. At this stage i think that Fitz would end up with the edge and the better record but it may only be a 2-3 win. This series would quite possibly be the greatest pound for pound series ever, since not only are these two guys arguably the two best pound for pound fighters ever, but they fought at the same weights as each other. When i get time, i intend to analyse each of these fights individually, with an emphasis on record, hopefully some of the others may look at these matches at other weights, as well.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 05:49 PM   #14
GPater11093
Barry
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 19,025
vCash: 836
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

[quote=janitor;5665730]
Quote:


Fitz was a counterpuncher who made good use of movment but he would almost turn Tyson if the man in front of him was small or not a big hitter.

Langford was a mean counterpuncher in his own right and did not rush in carelesly if he thought his opponent was dangerous.

You can find cases of Jack Dempsey getting clocked coming in but can you find a case of Sam Langford getting clocked coming in by a heavyweight?
like i said i am by no means an expert on Langford will definitly have to research him more.

Could this turn into a battle of counter-punchers as both guys are wary of each other?
GPater11093 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2009, 05:53 PM   #15
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,069
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

[quote=GPater11093;5665748]
Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor View Post

like i said i am by no means an expert on Langford will definitly have to research him more.

Could this turn into a battle of counter-punchers as both guys are wary of each other?
I honestly think it could be a chess match for a while, because each would be wary of playing the others game.

Once the fur flew however it would get exciting.
janitor 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 02:18 PM.


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