Which of the lineal heavyweight champions would Sam Langford have beaten?

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by janitor

Bill Tate was suficiently well regarded during Jack Dempseys title reign that he nearly got a title shot over Harry Wills.

This is not a journeyman type fighter.

I think journeyman is a correct description of Tate, although on the film of his fight with Norfolk he looks less than that. (Personally, I thought he looked like a tank artist).

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

Not good logic.

It would be a bit like arguing that Larry Holmes always had the tools to beat Muhamad Ali. Maybe he did, but I would not inferr it from that fight.

Nah, not at all. In fact, it's almost the opposite.

Langford wasn't finished or washed up when he met Fulton. Not at all. In fact, in the run up to that fight he fought a draw with Wills (The barometer of his slide into oblivion) and after he would smash up Kid Norfolk and draw with Wills again. Implying that he was in any way as badly washed up as Muhammad Ali was versus Holmes is surely more questionable than deducing he struggled with very tall fighters because results indicate this?

Sam was OK at the start of '17, but struggling at the end of it due to the injury Fulton inflicted on him whilst outboxing him. Before this fight, Langford has another inexplicable loss to a giant, Big Bill Tate, who outpointed him early in 1917. Bill Tate is one of the very worst fighters i've seen on film who fought at this kind of level - his advantages are purely physical ones, and they are height and reach. Langford did beat Tate later that year, but Tate did about as well as McVey did overall around this time inspite of his being nothing like as good. My conclusion is that Tate's physical advantages helped to close the class gap.

Langford would not just have lost his reflexes but also his feet.

I believe he had slipped, but not as far as you seem to think.

Read reports of a past prime Langford toying with the same Harry Wills who would later demolish Fred Fulton.

Langford in his prime beating an arguably pre-prime Wills up is impressive, but so are many of his results around this time. You really consider that Wills is so much worse than Langford that their fighting on even terms on occasion around this time indicates that Langford is shot? He was also able to beat McVey, Clark, Jim Johnson, Kid Norfolk, Jeanette...but not Fred Fulton.

Langford is exactly the type of fighter that Lewis should steer clear of. He is the type of fighter who might manufacture his worst case scenario, rather than exploit an opening.

I don't think he would manufacture it because he struggled to do so versus much, much worse fighters of similar physical dimensions. If he couldn't do it to Bill Tate in a losing effort in the same year he was able to beat Norfolk, Jeanette and draw with Wills, something is odd...if not physical advantages, what?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Kalasinn

I bet it's Tyson you favour Langford to beat, you don't need to hide that.

I don't favour Langford to beat any of those fighters, and i'm not in the habit of concealing my opinions on this forum

Height & reach be damned, Langford has an intelligent puncher's chance against the fragile Wlad.

Yeah, I think so.

Wlad is extremely unproven, the only Tier 2 fighter he's beaten is Byrd, & i insist Chagaev doesn't count since he was suffering badly from Hepatitis.

I nearly asked you this before, but what do you mean by "suffering badly"?

[Unforgiven]

The Langford-Fulton fight was suspected of being a tank job.

Can someone elaborate on Langford's injury ?

[Kalasinn]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I nearly asked you this before, but what do you mean by "suffering badly"?

The Hepatitis made him lethargic & limited his stamina.

[McGrain]

What's the evidence of a tank job? Because these things are one-handed, usually, it's still possible.

CMoyle's book has Langford receiving a brain-injury, possibly, that would continue to affect his vision at during this fight.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Kalasinn

The Hepatitis made him lethargic & limited his stamina.

Are you sure? I'll tell you why I ask. I have his career set and although he's a little more cautious, the difference is there but not huge - I actually think the Achilles injury is the one that did the damage.

Any evidence of this, or is it just one of these internet things?

[Kalasinn]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Are you sure? I'll tell you why I ask. I have his career set and although he's a little more cautious, the difference is there but not huge - I actually think the Achilles injury is the one that did the damage.

Any evidence of this, or is it just one of these internet things?

So now he had Hepatitis & an Achilles injury? Talk about tainted goods.
I thought the differences were big enough to noticeably subtract from the value of his win.

No, i don't have evidence of the Achilles injury, but it seems logical.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Nah, not at all. In fact, it's almost the opposite.

Langford wasn't finished or washed up when he met Fulton. Not at all. In fact, in the run up to that fight he fought a draw with Wills (The barometer of his slide into oblivion) and after he would smash up Kid Norfolk and draw with Wills again. Implying that he was in any way as badly washed up as Muhammad Ali was versus Holmes is surely more questionable than deducing he struggled with very tall fighters because results indicate this?

Sam was OK at the start of '17, but struggling at the end of it due to the injury Fulton inflicted on him whilst outboxing him. Before this fight, Langford has another inexplicable loss to a giant, Big Bill Tate, who outpointed him early in 1917. Bill Tate is one of the very worst fighters i've seen on film who fought at this kind of level - his advantages are purely physical ones, and they are height and reach. Langford did beat Tate later that year, but Tate did about as well as McVey did overall around this time inspite of his being nothing like as good. My conclusion is that Tate's physical advantages helped to close the class gap.

I believe he had slipped, but not as far as you seem to think.

I think we see the timeline verry differently.

Langford was past his best when he first fought Wills and was considered prety much shot by the middle of the series.

Langford lost to a coalition between age and Fred Fulton.

Langford in his prime beating an arguably pre-prime Wills up is impressive, but so are many of his results around this time.

Langford was not in his prime when he beat Wills.

For whatever it is worth Wills didn't think so either.

You really consider that Wills is so much worse than Langford that their fighting on even terms on occasion around this time indicates that Langford is shot? He was also able to beat McVey, Clark, Jim Johnson, Kid Norfolk, Jeanette...but not Fred Fulton.

Most of those fighters were taking the gentle slide into senility themselves.

Langford was able to beat superior light heavyweights at this point, based on power.

I don't think he would manufacture it because he struggled to do so versus much, much worse fighters of similar physical dimensions. If he couldn't do it to Bill Tate in a losing effort in the same year he was able to beat Norfolk, Jeanette and draw with Wills, something is odd...if not physical advantages, what?

Age.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Kalasinn

So now he had Hepatitis & an Achilles injury? Talk about tainted goods.
I thought the differences were big enough to noticeably subtract from the value of his win.

No, i don't have evidence of the Achilles injury, but it seems logical.

Yeah, I don't think that Chagaev was as good for Wlad as he was for Vyrchys/Sprott. I agree that it's a tainted win. Check out his thrashing of Skelton for a good example. He has his man ready to go in 10 but takes his foot off the pedal - he's just not confident in his own stamina any more. I think it was a mixture of inactivity, injury and illness that did it, combined with a style that called for a certain nimbleness that seemed to betray him along with maybe the very top sliver of his stamina. I'm a fan, and i'll be one of the very few guys in the UK who wouldn't mind if he stopped Haye in his tracks, but I don't expect to see it, could be an ugly fight however.

[TheGreatA]

Originally Posted by Kalasinn

So now he had Hepatitis & an Achilles injury? Talk about tainted goods.
I thought the differences were big enough to noticeably subtract from the value of his win.

No, i don't have evidence of the Achilles injury, but it seems logical.

Chagaev has had more than a few injuries. I believe he had surgery on his eye as well early on in his career. Being as injury-prone as he was made certain that his career was never going to last very long at top level. The Valuev win was basically his high moment, and it has been all downhill since then.

[Unforgiven]

Originally Posted by McGrain

What's the evidence of a tank job? Because these things are one-handed, usually, it's still possible.

CMoyle's book has Langford receiving a brain-injury, possibly, that would continue to affect his vision at during this fight.

No firm evidence of a tank job, but I've read a couple of articles, c. 1917, that suggested that Fulton's former manager (who split with him before the Langford fight) had been telling everyone Langford was being lined up to go a few rounds and then quit. Fulton needed the win to boost a damaged rep, and get himself back in the front of the queue for a title shot.
After all, Fulton had a glass jaw, so an 'uncuffed' Langford would have been a ridiculous risk.

[Unforgiven]

Chagaev was never great anyway, so it's immaterial about his condition for the Wlad fight. Having said that, he might still beat Haye !

I think Wlad's got wins over several fighters of Chagaev's caliber.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by janitor

I think we see the timeline verry differently.

I don't think so. I tend to think of him as past his best by 1915, unquestionably, but you seem to be talking about a shot fighter regarded as shot by the public - I don't see how that can be when he is knocking out world class fighters, and fighting draws with the world's best HW. He was often out of shape, but when he was in shape, as was the case with his 1916 one-punch KO of Harry Wills (possibly his best result) he absorbed an absolutley helatios beating before boxing back for the win. He wasn't training as seriously as he had, and was suffering for this, but he was still capable of outboxing Wills for spells, as seemed to be the case on their January 3rd meeting of that year.

In short, Langford was out of shape for a lot of these fights.

But I really don't think that he was "shot" or even regarded as shot, as you seem to be saying. He was unquestinably a world class fighter.

Langford was not in his prime when he beat Wills.

For whatever it is worth Wills didn't think so either.

As you like it; but he was unquesitonably a world class fighter, and likely the best fighter of any weight in the world.

Most of those fighters were taking the gentle slide into senility themselves.

31, 26, 35, 29...

Age.

Let's flip this then. As neither Wlad or Lewis lost to anyone who were 5'6, which fighters, outside of Tate to whom he also lost, who were 6'6 did Langford trap onto a KO?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Unforgiven

No firm evidence of a tank job, but I've read a couple of articles, c. 1917, that suggested that Fulton's former manager (who split with him before the Langford fight) had been telling everyone Langford was being lined up to go a few rounds and then quit. Fulton needed the win to boost a damaged rep, and get himself back in the front of the queue for a title shot.
After all, Fulton had a glass jaw, so an 'uncuffed' Langford would have been a ridiculous risk.

Langford was badly out of shape for the fight, and it showed. Fulton appears to have jabbed him at will, although Langford seemed to have success countering the right hand, forcing Fulton back to the jab, for which Langford had no apparent answer.

In his corner, after the fourth or fifth, Langford begged his corner to open up his blinded left eye, believing there to be swelling - but there was none. Langford, whilst trying to close the gap on Fulton had taken a big blow to the head which appears to have blinded him in his left eye. The damaging blow was apparently to the temple, not the eye. Langford described it as an enormous pain in his head.

From memory, Moyle has not sense that this is a tank job.