Sam Langford vs Archie Moore at 175

Bummy, we don't know if Archie had much more savvy or not ... the footage we have to me shows a Langford so superior to his opponents he walks right through them. His strength, stamina, speed and power are truly astonishing ... he simply walks guys down and beats the crap out of them ... when you keep in mind he fought lightning fast guys like Blackburn, Gans, Walcott coming up I'm fairly sure he used far different technique to keep up with these guys ... Langford was simply a serious unique character ... how many other natural super middleweights in history would we even consider matching up with the all time best of the 200 pound and under class ?

 

Sam's a little better than Archie. I think he might stop him.

 

Langford kod over 90 heavyweights ,some were class men ,but equally many were dross.

 

Sam could knock out Archie and dominate this fight, but I'm leaning towards Moore and his ring generalship. They don't call him the Ole Mongoose for nothing and I believe he wins this fight by late KO or close UD. Definitely Sam would make a fight out of this matchup.

 

And the point is what ?

He KO'ed Wills twice, Godfrey, Flynn, Smith among others ... his power is pretty unquestioned.

 

The point is 90 kos of heavyweights looks mighty impressive, until we look at some of their resumes. I should have thought that was self evident .:huh

Godfrey was a novice, [3-1-1 & 4-3-1], Flynn was a has been, who was kod 23 times, the last time Sam did it ,Flynn was 44.Smith was kod 12 times, not too durable.
Stopping Wills is obviously noteworthy.
As is the Jeannette ko.

You're arguing against an argument that has not been made [again].

My point in indicating the quality of some of his victims is to illustrate Langford's power may not have been significantly greater than Moore's.

Anyone troubling to look at Moore's heavyweight ko resume ,might be surprised by how well it compares to Langford's, in quality ,if not quantity.

 

Moore........... Sam Lang never saw dude's like "Moore and Charles" in his day.... Moore was better at 175.......
:bbbthumbsup

MR.BILL:hat

 

I see it a bit differently .. I see you as hedging on an position, a repeating pattern in your threads... on one hand you are playing down the accomplishments of Langford but on the other you throw him a bone where his accomplishments are undeniable .. this way when a debate goes in a direction you do not like you can play either angle ... standard debate 101 ... In addition, you throw out stats while choosing not to focus on the details..

Back to point, I'm not here to say Moore was not a terrific fighter or puncher but I feel to compare him to Langford as a puncher at heavyweight is a huge jump in class. When he KO'd Flynn , Flynn was in his own prime. When he KO'd Smith , Smith was in his prime. When he KO'd Wills, Wills was in his prime , when he KO'd McVey, McVey was still prime (not the novice Johnson fought), when he KO'd Jeanette they were at comparable points in their career and while Godfrey is a bit checkered in general we do know Sam was old, fat and blind in one eye and failing vision in the other so all and all I'd say things were fair going in ... he also managed to KO Jim Johnson at least once and I think we all know who could not .. :hey

In addition, how many of these fighters all agreed that no one ever hit them harder in their careers than Langford ? All of them. MY point is not that Sam Langford was perfect as of course he was not. He was fighting out of his own best weight, he fought half his career with severe eye damage and at heavyweight large men , during his career and in the decades to follow, who could box, punch and clinch could likely defeat this blown up super middleweight .. however, he was a one of a kind, a physical freak and I believe not only the best pound for pound puncher of all time but one of the best single shot hitters of all time , period.

 

Funny you should bring that up because I was just thinking about that this morning. There are more fighters claiming that Langford hit them the hardest than those claiming Moore hit them hardest despite the fact that we have more testimoney on record from opponents of the latter than the former. That's very telling.

Serious question here....Been racking my brain trying to remember if any fighters claimed Archie Moore hit them harder than anyone they faced at MW or LHW, let alone HW. Did anyone?

 

Tiger Ted Lowry. Over 100 career fights at heavyweight throughout the 1940s. Fought big heavyweights, big punchers, rocky marciano 2x. He claimed "Archie Moore was the hardest hitter I ever faced."

 

It ain't gonna be that easy. Let's be real for a second. Other than his amazing resume(in which Archie has near equally as impressive a resume)...Does Sam really wow you that much on film? We have clear film of him for 22 minutes vs Jeanette. Does he do anything godly like that could make you think to pick him so easily over Archie Moore? I don't see it. While Langford does look good on film, certainly better than his early 1900s counterparts, he doesn't look any better to me than say Archie Moore. When I watch Sam on film, I see low hands, no head movement, pretty stationary, no upperbody movement. He was a freak for his day(great left hook, sharp reflexes, immensely strong), but boxing evolved a lot since then. Moore fought in a era where fighters had much better skills/fundamentals than fighters during Sam's era. Moore was the complete package on film. Upperbody Movement, Skills, Punching technique, punching power, finishing ability, defense, jab, combinations, head movement, footwork, ring intelligence. He had it all. Why do you think great fighters TODAY like Hopkins/Toney study and emulate Archie Moore on film, and not fighters from the 1920s? Sam could not fight like he did back then and be great in modern day boxing. He has all the tools to be an ATG fighter in modern eras, but he would have to change up his style.



I laugh my ass off when I see these old timers in tight spandex boxing with their hands low, chins out, leaning back.....A modern fighter with a high tight gaurd, chin tucked, the ability to jab and throw combinations...would destroy that type of fighter.


I think boxing technique changed a lot from 1910 to 1940. I think since 1940, technique's have not changed that much. 1940s was the start of fighters transitioning from low bareknuckle style hands, to modern high gaurd protecting the chin. I think the 1940s-1950s had the technique PLUS the toughness modern fighters today lack. That's why I think the 1940s,50s 60, 70s even 80s were the best eras in boxing history

 

This is an intelligent post worthy of addressing.:good
[Did you notice that patronising thumbs up?]

Seriously.
I tend to think as I type, I use other posters as a sounding board,you credit me with far to much Macchiaveillian manipulation of memoirs [ I know memoirs is not apt but it is onamatapaeic.]:hey

Hedging on my position?
I picked Langford and "possibly by stoppage ",in my very first post :huh
Do you actually read all the posts?

Because you allways appear to be defending positions that have not been attacked !


Do you equate Jack Johnson's power with Langford's?
Because this is silly attempted points scoring.
Langford was a dynamite hitter ,Johnson could get you out of there ,IF he thought it safe to do so ,and IF he was a of a mind to do so. But he was not in Langford's class as a banger ,very few were, or are .

I have to say your debating leaves much to be desired, I've just come in from the pub, and can drive a truck through your post.
Mental note to yourself." I must try harder".

N.B. Did you think I would really let," It's wonderful ,and meaningless " go?



"You ain't gonna have to come lookin for me,Im gonna make you a special project of mine"

"No Country For Old Men".

 

A tad embarrassed that I didn't remember this considering that Ted told me that very thing on the phone shortly before he passed. Thanks for jogging my memory. Now I wish I'd recorded our convo. Life is full of could'as, would'as and should'as....