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 11-12-2011, 03:15 AM   #46
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 22,360
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoyle View Post
"I'll sum it up nice and short, cause I don't feel like going into detail. Sam Langford was made for Jack Johnson. A 5'6 stationary fighter who didn't move much, hardly moved his head, and was hittable was a prime target for a 6'1 defensive fighter who threw a nice jab, had very fast hands/reflexes and great countering ability. Langford had the punch and finishing ability to knock out Johnson, but he would never get to him. Johnson would box his brains out at long range all night and counter Sam to death whenever he tried to get in close. Even if Sam got Johnson in clinches, Johnson was stronger than Sam at a chizzled 210lb, and with plenty of functional strength. Sam would not be able to wear down Johnson with his strength."

Just curious, did you reach the same conclusion concerning a possible match between Rocky Marciano and Jack Johnson?

This post needs to be considered carefully and given the due weight it deserves ,because the author of it has written a very well received book on one of the protagonists involved here.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-12-2011, 10:20 AM   #47
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

"You say Langford 140-156lb, but isn't it a fact Langford was 156lb and not 140lb? That's a big difference."

I wouldn't be surprised if Langford really did weigh 156 for the fight, but I don't know if we can say that's a fact for sure. The Police Gazette reported him as weighing 156 for the fight and Johnson outweighing him by about 30 pouncs. But, the Boston Herald reported that Langford was nearly 40 pounds lighter. In his book 'Mes Combats' Johnson writes that he weighed 190 pounds and Langford only 138. So, I'm not sure. The only thing I'm confident in saying is that Langford was under the middleweight limit at the time and I think there's a very big difference in the punch that a middleweight carries than one that a legitimate light-heavyweight as Langford later grew into does.

"Also Johnson had a 29lb advantage on Langford, Jeffries often had 35-50lb weight advantages on his best opponents. Does this take away from Jeffries victories? "

I'd say it depends on the weights of the men that Jeffries was fighting against, I doubt any of them were middleweights. I tend to agree with a lot of the following statement made by Billy Madden about Billy Miske at a point in Miske's life before he was diagnosed with Bright's Disease:

"Billy Madden, onetime manager of heavyweight champion John L. Sullivan, piped in as well voicing his opinion Billy (Miske) was big enough to whip any professional fighter in the world.

That youngster is one of the best fighters I ever saw and I’ve seen the best in the game for the last forty-five years, and as for size and weight, Miske is big enough for all purposes. It isn’t necessary for a man to weigh more than 175 or 180 pounds in order to whip the best man in the world. These giants like Willard, Fulton and Carl Morris are too big to be first class fighters. Men of that size are naturally slow and get lost against the fast, quick-hitting men of normal size. Miske is very fast and shifty and he delivers his blows with both hands in rapid-fire fashion. He is an ideally built fighting man, and I might say the best I’ve ever seen.

Madden went on to say that he’d wager on Miske against Willard with all the confidence in the world. “John L. Sullivan, when he was at his best, weighed about 180 pounds. Jim Corbett, when he beat Sullivan at New Orleans weighed exactly 178,” said Madden, “and Jack Johnson never was as formidable as when he weighed 185 pounds.”

I think men like Marciano and Langford proved that 185 pounders are perfectly capable of knocking out heavyweights 30-40 pounds heavier than themselves. But, I don't think you find middleweights doing the same thing, or at least anywhere near as often.
Cmoyle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2011, 03:51 PM   #48
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,313
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by KuRuPT View Post
As usual you make a good point Janitor, but I'm not sure I totally agree. I think Johnson (like you mentioned with Sam) would've come in good shape if he knew he was fighting Langford. Next, in a 20 round fight, I don't think Sam can beat Johnson even in 1912 or 1913. The reason I say this is because Sam would need more rounds to take Johnson out and break down his defense and let his not prime state take over. Willard who was a Giant with a solid chin and punch couldn't do much to a 37 year old well past his best Johnson in tropical heat until after the 20th round where he started to wear down. Difference is, I don't think Sam could've taken the shots willard did when Johnson was trying to get him out of there nor do I think Sam could get to Johnson before 20. So while you make a good point, I honestly believe Johnson just has Sam's number and would train better then other fights if he knew he had to face him.
I somtimes think that people under estimate the rapidity of Johnsons decline after the Jeffries fight. It was arguably more abrupt than Mike Tysons decline after he went to prison. It is well documented that Johnson suffered some sort of mental or nervous breakdown due to the violence that resulted from his fight with Jeffries.

I also think that Johnson might well have retired had he not been arested under the mann act (how ironic is that?). It is also possible that said arrest cheated us out of a title fight between Johnson and Langford. The big money offers for such a match started arriving at this time.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2011, 04:11 PM   #49
PetethePrince
Slick & Redheaded
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,395
vCash: 1200
Default Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

Langford is a dangerous puncher but Johnson seems to have a good style for him. I don't see any controversy with that statement.
PetethePrince is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2011, 08:13 PM   #50
SuzieQ49
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 13,490
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

Quote:
"Billy Madden, onetime manager of heavyweight champion John L. Sullivan, piped in as well voicing his opinion Billy (Miske) was big enough to whip any professional fighter in the world.

That youngster is one of the best fighters I ever saw and I’ve seen the best in the game for the last forty-five years, and as for size and weight, Miske is big enough for all purposes. It isn’t necessary for a man to weigh more than 175 or 180 pounds in order to whip the best man in the world. These giants like Willard, Fulton and Carl Morris are too big to be first class fighters. Men of that size are naturally slow and get lost against the fast, quick-hitting men of normal size. Miske is very fast and shifty and he delivers his blows with both hands in rapid-fire fashion. He is an ideally built fighting man, and I might say the best I’ve ever seen.

Madden went on to say that he’d wager on Miske against Willard with all the confidence in the world. “John L. Sullivan, when he was at his best, weighed about 180 pounds. Jim Corbett, when he beat Sullivan at New Orleans weighed exactly 178,” said Madden, “and Jack Johnson never was as formidable as when he weighed 185 pounds.”

I think men like Marciano and Langford proved that 185 pounders are perfectly capable of knocking out heavyweights 30-40 pounds heavier than themselves. But, I don't think you find middleweights doing the same thing, or at least anywhere near as often.

Thanks interesting stuff

Off topic, How do you think Peter Jackson would have done vs John L Sullivan, Jim Jeffries(prime)? Do you think he was better than Corbett?
SuzieQ49 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2011, 10:14 AM   #51
Cmoyle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 586
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Just studied Sam Langford and Jack Johnson on film..my conclusion

"Off topic, How do you think Peter Jackson would have done vs John L Sullivan, Jim Jeffries(prime)? Do you think he was better than Corbett?"

Boy I don't know prime vs. prime but if we're talking Jackson vs. Sullivan around the same time Jackson fought Corbett I'd take Jackson. Corbett reportedly called Jackson the greatest he ever fought, didn't he? And, I've read that Jackson sprained his ankle just prior to fighting Corbett and was somewhat limited in terms of his mobility the only time they faced one another in that 61-round draw. Corbett sure didn't seem anxious to face him again after he won the title. By all accounts, Jackson was washed up by the time he fought and lost to Jeffries but I think I might have picked Jeffries to wear him down and ultimately defeat him in a match of the two in their primes. Adam Pollack is probably a much better guy to weigh in on this one.
Cmoyle 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 04:23 PM.


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