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 02-07-2013, 09:55 AM   #211
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,636
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Some posters refuse to acknowledge how much of a heavyweight force Dempsey was perceived to be from 1919-23 by his peers. Or Joe Louis in HIS time for that matter.
Were the boxing fraternity and fans of that era wrong in their assumption or are some naysayers of today, 85 years later ? That IS the question....
Was Dempsey as active a champion as we would wish ? Heck NO. But I am talking
Dempsey H2H against other heavyweights, which makes fantasy discussions interesting
I should think....
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-07-2013, 12:51 PM   #212
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
Its a terrific result but it doesn't confirm your sweeping statement that Langford was the greatest trap setter of alltime , neither do two or three grainy film clips, any more than Langford's statement that Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight champion of them all.

There is no sweeping statement and no proof. There is just opinion and it is mine that Langford was the best trap setter out there.

Jack himself picked Langford to beat him, I'm just taking his side in the debate.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 01:06 PM   #213
Lord Tywin
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by burt bienstock View Post
Some posters refuse to acknowledge how much of a heavyweight force Dempsey was perceived to be from 1919-23 by his peers. Or Joe Louis in HIS time for that matter.
Were the boxing fraternity and fans of that era wrong in their assumption or are some naysayers of today, 85 years later ? That IS the question....
Was Dempsey as active a champion as we would wish ? Heck NO. But I am talking
Dempsey H2H against other heavyweights, which makes fantasy discussions interesting
I should think....

Perceived being the operative word.

On the other hand some posters refuse to acknowledge that Dempsey ducked his two most formidible challengers for seven years, won his championship from one of the weakest champions in history, defended it against a group of fighters that everyone knew he would beat, and went one year (July 1919 to September 1920), then two years (July 1921 to July 1923), then three years (September 1923 to September 1926) without defending his championship.

That isnt exactly the greatest track record in history for such a supposed "force."
Lord Tywin is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 02:33 PM   #214
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,064
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
There is no sweeping statement and no proof. There is just opinion and it is mine that Langford was the best trap setter out there.

Jack himself picked Langford to beat him, I'm just taking his side in the debate.
It was a sweeping statement that has no substance to back it but your personal opinion,which of course you are entitled to. I just don't have to agree with it without there being any evidence to support it.

Ever read of Dempsey bad mouthing a fighter? He was as gentlemanly outside the ring as he was a savage inside it.
I place no credence in that quote at all.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 02:46 PM   #215
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
It was a sweeping statement that has no substance to back it but your personal opinion,which of course you are entitled to. I just don't have to agree with it without there being any evidence to support it.

Ever read of Dempsey bad mouthing a fighter? He was as gentlemanly outside the ring as he was a savage inside it.
I place no credence in that quote at all.
Noone says you have to agree with it. It is my pick after all in arguably the most subjective of sports.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:22 PM   #216
Lord Tywin
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

No substance to back that Langford was a crafty fighter who was one of the best at laying traps for men to walk into powerpunches?

I strongly disagree. It can be seen in all of the film of him and is backed up by a multitude of eye witness reports.

If Langford had such a vulnerable chin as you seem intent on pointing out "Langford was floored around 30 times." Then being a simple walk in slugger who was small for a heavyweight isnt going to allow him to go very far.

If Sam Langford was not crafty and was not good at laying traps for bigger fighters what exactly do you see in his style? How do you explain his ability to have such great success against bigger men? How do you account for the glowing reports of his ability to do just that in his prime and even past it?
Lord Tywin is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:30 PM   #217
Lord Tywin
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
It was a sweeping statement that has no substance to back it but your personal opinion,which of course you are entitled to. I just don't have to agree with it without there being any evidence to support it.

Ever read of Dempsey bad mouthing a fighter? He was as gentlemanly outside the ring as he was a savage inside it.
I place no credence in that quote at all.

Yes, he went on a very public, and very nasty smear campaign against Tunney after they fought.

At other times he was very nasty to Willard and earlier Harry Wills.

Besides, its not like he said this just once. He stated several times over his life that he feared Langford and even at his best wasnt sure if he could beat him.
Lord Tywin is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 04:59 PM   #218
KuRuPT
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,789
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Sam IMO has most of the advantages in this fight. It's his fight to lose imo.
KuRuPT is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:20 PM   #219
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,064
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Tywin View Post
Yes, he went on a very public, and very nasty smear campaign against Tunney after they fought.

At other times he was very nasty to Willard and earlier Harry Wills.

Besides, its not like he said this just once. He stated several times over his life that he feared Langford and even at his best wasnt sure if he could beat him.
Sources?
Dempsey stated publicly , when asked if Tunney could have gotten up before ten in their second fight ."If Gene says he could, I won't doubt his word. "
Dempsey gave a down and out Willard a job.

Langford said that Dempsey was the greatest of them all. Do you give that the same credence as the other quote ,or is it not convenient to do so?
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:38 PM   #220
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,064
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Tywin View Post
No substance to back that Langford was a crafty fighter who was one of the best at laying traps for men to walk into powerpunches?

I strongly disagree. It can be seen in all of the film of him and is backed up by a multitude of eye witness reports.

If Langford had such a vulnerable chin as you seem intent on pointing out "Langford was floored around 30 times." Then being a simple walk in slugger who was small for a heavyweight isnt going to allow him to go very far.

If Sam Langford was not crafty and was not good at laying traps for bigger fighters what exactly do you see in his style? How do you explain his ability to have such great success against bigger men? How do you account for the glowing reports of his ability to do just that in his prime and even past it?
No substance to state that he was maybe the greatest trap setter in history. Please don't put words in my mouth ,I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
I don't seem intent on pointing out, it's a fact, that should be born in mind by those that state Dempsey could not survive a flush shot from Langford.

I've merely pointed out that this scenario works both ways.

Langford's style?
I think it is presumptuous to aver that you can confidently give a definitive analysis of it from a few grainy ,century old clips.

Maybe we have some indication , thats about it. I see a man who appears to have a porous defence , but that may be entirely because of the calibre of fighter we are seeing him engage with .

I see a fighter who looks eminently hittable with the jab and the fact that Fulton, and Smith beat him with this weapon seems to bear this out .

As I said the few clips of him may give an indication of his style therefore I've used the words seems may,and looks to describe his m. o.

Langford could be tagged ,and he could be dropped and you did not have to be the very best to do it.

Iron Hague made him turn nearly a full somersault, but was too slow ,cumbersome ,and out of shape to folow up his momentary advantage.

If Dempsey caught him he would be all over him like a rash.
This of course works vice versa ,thats why I call it a toss up fight.

My opinion seems to irk quite a few Dempsey non fans. T. S.


There is a multitude of eye witness reports that state Dempsey was the greatest man killer the ring has seen. I don't see you putting any stock in them.

Last edited by mcvey; 02-08-2013 at 02:39 AM.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 08:31 PM   #221
Lord Tywin
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 797
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Langford might very well have been the greatest trap setter of all time.

I dont see anything wrong with that statement.

You say you cant get a handle on his style based on the film available of him and disregard the first hand sources. Fair enough. If thats the case then you basically admit you are flying blind as to Langford and arent exactly qualified to judge one way or t'other.

You see a walk in slugger who was easy to hit. I see a man who pressures a fighter, forcing leads, and then uses head movement and slips to create openings from which to counter. He looks like a proto-Tyson to me. Im very impressed with Langford on film.

Sure Dempsey could have hurt Langford as well. That wasnt the point. The point was that if Dempsey walks into a right hand like he was hit repeatedly with by the completely unskilled Firpo, or the one that the fragile Carpentier badly wobbled him with, or the ones he ate all night from Brennan and Gene Tunney you can say good night.

If you admit that a prime Dempsey (except for possibly against Tunney) ate right hands from all of those fighters before he got them out of there and you accept that Langford was a better fighter than those guys, which I do, then it stands to reason that Dempsey might have an uphill battle against him.

Langford was able to knock out the guy that Dempsey spent seven years running from like he was the boogie man.

Dempsey admitted more than once he wasnt sure if even in his prime he could beat Langford. Like someone else said, Im just taking his side in this argument
Lord Tywin is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 10:21 PM   #222
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

I'm in good company with my pick - that of Dempsey himself.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 03:06 AM   #223
mcvey
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Garden Of England
Posts: 20,064
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Tywin View Post
Langford might very well have been the greatest trap setter of all time.

I dont see anything wrong with that statement.

You say you cant get a handle on his style based on the film available of him and disregard the first hand sources. Fair enough. If thats the case then you basically admit you are flying blind as to Langford and arent exactly qualified to judge one way or t'other.

You see a walk in slugger who was easy to hit. I see a man who pressures a fighter, forcing leads, and then uses head movement and slips to create openings from which to counter. He looks like a proto-Tyson to me. Im very impressed with Langford on film.

Sure Dempsey could have hurt Langford as well. That wasnt the point. The point was that if Dempsey walks into a right hand like he was hit repeatedly with by the completely unskilled Firpo, or the one that the fragile Carpentier badly wobbled him with, or the ones he ate all night from Brennan and Gene Tunney you can say good night.

If you admit that a prime Dempsey (except for possibly against Tunney) ate right hands from all of those fighters before he got them out of there and you accept that Langford was a better fighter than those guys, which I do, then it stands to reason that Dempsey might have an uphill battle against him.

Langford was able to knock out the guy that Dempsey spent seven years running from like he was the boogie man.

Dempsey admitted more than once he wasnt sure if even in his prime he could beat Langford. Like someone else said, Im just taking his side in this argument

I don't disregard the sources I counter them with those that proclaim Dempsey the greatest giant- killer of all time ,its you who disregard those.

I would hazard a guess that you haven't seen any Langford footage that I've not viewed, in fact I think I probably have the edge on that score because I have seen excerpts of him via Hague,alas not him being bowled over.

The fact that I don't presume to have the inside track on how he operated in the ring doesn't make me any less qualified to give an opinion than you or any one else.
It does mean that I'm possibly a little less dogmatic or
arrogant on the subject than others who give out their opinion like Moses walking down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets.


Again you are putting words into my mouth ,and it's getting rather tiresome , I've never called Langford A WALK IN SLUGGER. I said he appears to be easy to hit, which may be because of the abilities of the men he was facing on film ,[ he had no fear of Flynn,Lang ,and Jeannette was not a huge hitter].

'Ive qualified every comment I made on Langford.
Langford may have look a lot more cautious defensively against Gunboat Smith in their first fight because Smith was a hitter , but we don't know , no one alive has seen it.
You are certain in your opinions. That doesn't mean you're right, but it may mean you are presumptious.
I agree Langford looks tremendous on what film there is of him.
So does Dempsey imo .
Langford looks like a prototype of Tyson? Tyson modelled himself on Dempsey, even to the haircut , lack of robe, and shoes.

His nick name" Iron MIke" comes from the nick name for Dempsey's right hand ,did you know that?

You think I'm not qualified to give an opinion ,ie I'm flying blind.

Maybe I'm just more modest than you give me credit for

Its your opinion, I boxed , [ low standard stuff,] I've followed boxing for over 50 , just a fan , but I've been around it for awhile.

Dempsey was repeatedly hit by right hands? Was he?
Firpo landed how many? Firpo couldnt drop Langford I suppose? A cruder facsimile of him, [Hague] did.

Carpentier badly wobbled Dempsey ? I don't think so.

Langford was dropped twice by light hitting Porky Flynn.





Tunney went on record to say Dempsey was hard to catch cleanly on the chin with the right hand.

"Prime Dempsey except possibly against Tunney" Is there any doubt he was no longer prime?

This ranks with Luf stating Dempsey was prime in 1917.


Dempsey would be the best fighter that Langford faced outside of Johnson imo. Again it works both ways.
Dempsey said he thought Langford would beat him.
Langford said Dempsey was the greatest heavyweight ever ," he hits as hard as Jeffries, and is as fast as Corbett".

One cancels out the other, and both are worthless when assessing their respective abilities.
You didn't respond to my replies about Dempsey bad mouthing fighters or my requests for sources.
I gave a couple of examples of Dempsey's generosity to back up mine.

All I've done is say that imo, this fight is a toss - up ,I havent said Dempsey bombs out Langford or any such like, yet some posters appear to think Langford only has to tag Jack once and it's good night.

I think Im the more rational on the match.
Let us be frank you have no love for Dempsey, that's obvious, it colours every comment you make about him.

You dislike my posts,fine I find yours disingenuous , and that's being polite.

Last edited by mcvey; 02-08-2013 at 03:57 PM.
mcvey is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:52 AM   #224
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Langford one bombs him the minute Dempsey drops his hands.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:48 AM   #225
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,636
vCash: 500
Default Re: Dempsey v Langford

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
No substance to state that he was maybe the greatest trap setter in history. Please don't put words in my mouth ,I'm quite capable of speaking for myself.
I don't seem intent on pointing out, it's a fact, that should be born in mind by those that state Dempsey could not survive a flush shot from Langford.

I've merely pointed out that this scenario works both ways.

Langford's style?
I think it is presumptuous to aver that you can confidently give a definitive analysis of it from a few grainy ,century old clips.

Maybe we have some indication , thats about it. I see a man who appears to have a porous defence , but that may be entirely because of the calibre of fighter we are seeing him engage with .

I see a fighter who looks eminently hittable with the jab and the fact that Fulton, and Smith beat him with this weapon seems to bear this out .

As I said the few clips of him may give an indication of his style therefore I've used the words seems may,and looks to describe his m. o.

Langford could be tagged ,and he could be dropped and you did not have to be the very best to do it.

Iron Hague made him turn nearly a full somersault, but was too slow ,cumbersome ,and out of shape to folow up his momentary advantage.

If Dempsey caught him he would be all over him like a rash.
This of course works vice versa ,thats why I call it a toss up fight.

My opinion seems to irk quite a few Dempsey non fans. T. S.


There is a multitude of eye witness reports that state Dempsey was the greatest man killer the ring has seen. I don't see you putting any stock in them.
Mc, nothing you can post will register on some posters who mean wel,l but have a visceral distaste for Jack Dempsey, BASED on not his H2H abilities
against anyone, but the fact that he did not eventually fight Harry Wills
and to a lesser degree Harry Greb...
And he did go Hollywood, not fighting for three years living La Dolce Vita,
and tarnishing his image coming back to fight a razor sharp Gene Tunney
sans a tuneup bout and we all know the results...So these posters base Dempsey's H2H legacy on the image of Dempsey against Tunney,when Jack was 32 and a shell of himself...To use an analogy ,like having a fine meal at a restaurant , but the coffee and dessert was bad and that last taste of coffee is what defines your meal...I, on the other hand agree that Dempsey
should have been more active when champ, but I strongly believe that
when Dempsey "had it", he was as writers, boxers and trainers of his prime and after attested, was the greatest offensive force,alongst with Joe Louis
and young Mike Tyson, in heavyweight history....Cheers...
burt bienstock 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 10:10 AM.


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