Would Langford Be Badly Beaten BY Modern Heavies?

People who write biographies pick a 5'6 170lbs over the Klitschko's 2 of the hardest men to beat in history? They pick the oldest fighter in all match ups?

People writing these biographies have a grasp of the subject at hand, the history of the time. It does not mean they understand the mechanics of boxing. Or maybe like many they just pick their favourites

 

Interestingly, the people who write the biographies, who the experts go to for advice, usualy do have some background in boxing.

They still end up with a higher estimate of these early fighters, when matched against those from later eras, than most people on this forum have.

The truth is that most early fighters will go up in your estimation when you research them. Records tend to loose their shine as the context of the fights, and relevance of the opponents gets eroded.

 

You'll need to give examples of biographers, who pick someone who'd be a middleweight today, to beat the Klitschko's. And some examples of said writer/writers been asked for advice by 'experts'. Which 'experts' or how about trainers have asked a writer for tips on boxing? Someone with an outlook similar to your own?

Actually just pick out a writer who's achieved something in boxing, either amateur/pro or as a trainer, can you find any? I'd say it's more likely they are writers writing about their heros, which leads to obvious bias and romanticism over objective analysis of the sport

Research brings positive and negative when you look at old timers. You do get an appreciation of some of their achievements. You also see some of their weaknesses, a thorough analysis should be used and these weaknesses should be focused on just as by any objective historian

I think it likely allot of earlier pre-1920 fighters probably had more fights than we have recorded. But if they didn't they had an incredibly small talent pool.

Like I'm on record as saying, I believe it was a fledging semi-pro sport coming into the 20s. Look at how far every recordable sport has improved and you see massive improvements. Boxing is a sport unlike these, it requires mastery of more abilities and has smaller talent pools generally. That gives more variables so some old timers would beat some more modern boxers.

 

I'm not real sure that I completely understand some of the comments made here by PowerPuncher but will offer a few thoughts of my own.

First, although Langford started as a lightweight and fought as a welter and middleweight on his way toward becoming a light-heavyweight and ultimately heavyweight I tend to think of him as a light-heavyweight because that's really what he became once he was done physically maturing. I believe his best fighting weight was anywhere between the 170-180 pound range. Ultimately, he got fat toward the latter part of his career.

I do believe that there's a good chance that a greater percentage of those who write boxing biographies may not have any, or much, experience as boxers themselves. I've only written two biographies to-date, about Sam Langford and Billy Miske, and I certainly don't have much in the way of boxing experience. Mine was limited to a year in a Seattle gym that I went to four days/week and received instruction from a former middleweight contender named Tommy Howard.

I know that Adam Pollack, who is doing a fantastic job chronicling the careers of heavyweight champions from John L. Sullivan forward, is a boxing trainer, judge and referee and I imagine he must have a boxing background. But, he may likely be the exception. I'd certainly be interested to learn what kind of backgrounds in boxing more individuals who write biographies about earlier 1900s fighters have. But, regardless, I don't believe it's a requirement to be a former boxer or trainer to to produce an objective and knowledgeable piece of work about an early fighter. Not if one does their homework and uses the input of the knowledgeable parties who were there at the time.

The thing that drew me to Langford as a subject in the first place were all the comments I read about him and his abilities by not only so many prominent writers of that era but so many of the great fighters, trainers and managers.

I don't personally follow the Klitschko's careers much because the few fights I bothered to watch bored the hell out of me. I'm not saying I don't appreciate how good they are, only that I didn't find their styles or fights entertaining. I wouldn't even begin to feel qualified to try and comment as to how Sam Langford would do against either of them. It wouldn't surprise me at all though to learn that they'd both be much too big for him if one could somehow throw him against one or another in their primes. I imagine them fighting against Sam in much the same way that Jack Johnson would have in a rematch, cautiously using their size to advantage.

I'm having a hard time imagining how anyone with much knowledge of boxing in the early 1900s would consider it a fledging semi-pro sport.

 

Johnson went up a lot in his estimation once he started researching the Johnson biography. Before that he was more lukewarm in his praise.

I don't think any fighters standing has ever been harmed by a Pollack biography to date.

 

****ing stupid that tiny people are matched against big people, unlike in the rest of boxing, because they fall into the same historical category.

Of course Sam Langdon would get smashed up by fighters much larger than he - so would Rocky Mascherano, Bits Bobzsimmons and Tommy Burned. It's obvious. I'm not sure why this is so hard to fathom, as we'd never dream of picking Robert Duran over Dwight Mozambique Qawi at light heavyweight.

Doesn't stop me saying that Mascherano/Langdon were some of the best ever for their weight.

 

That's it, odd loss because of the schedule

Not because he's half as tall and heavy, you absolute ****ing crack ***** :nut

 

Physics you ****ing **********. Why can't you grasp this?

I'm assuming it's because you are a massive idiot with plums in his mouth and a severely stunted brain growth as affected by too many cigar totin' anecdotes and murder-weapon-sized biographies.

I'm not usually this abusive but come on, open your ****ing eyes everybody, we've tolerated this old cow hoof for too long now :good

Get your coat, it's time for the museum.

 

I hope that you will take the time to write a book, while you are a teenager and still know everything.

Just think, in a few years it will be too late!

 

Of course they do. We all champion our own areas of expertise. It is natural and in our own best fiscal interests.

 

So writers who romantically view a period consider it higher than myself? It should be noted boxing fans tend to pick their favourites, these writers are no different.

What about the actual dynamics of boxing?

But here you're picking a 5'6 man over 2 elite master boxers who have a foot or more in height on him. Look at this picture and then imagine a Langford who's 5inches shorter than Tyson

This content is protected

Or look at this picture and remember Haye is only 10inches shorter than Valuev where as Langford is 12 inches shorter than Vitali. Langford is actually the same height as Hatton.

This content is protected

I think he is a force but not that dominant or the best HW in his own time. The level of competition of the time and the development of skillsets I'd also question

So you've moved away from 'Trainers ask advice from boxing historians'

To be precise most trainers and boxers study film of the 40s-50s boxers, 60s-70s boxers, 80s boxer but few boxers/trainers study the film of pre-40s boxers. Plenty poke fun at the technical standards of the boxers of the era

I disagree with him, it doesn't mean I don't listen to a trainers reasoning or arguments

With all due respect to him, what's the records of those he's trained? Amateur or Pro? How many trainers have asked his advise?

There's a case for this, although I still see it as semi-pro fledging sport with a smaller talent pool, as it was documented that boxing participation exploded in the 20s and 30s, by Dempsey for example

 

Typical response from an 'I'm older, therefore more logical' elder.

Not a teenager thanks, though only four years off (I'm 9, I mean, 23), not that it has any ****ing relevance. At least I recognise Jess Willard was by and large a bit of a stiff, whereas I assume (and correct me if I'm mistaken) you would sit here until the morning hours trying to convince me he had a poleaxe right hand and a jab like a hammer, and pretty good footwork too.

You've said some stupid **** in your time here and I've never really piped up out of laziness. That Sam Langford could beat every top ten contender today is definitely one of the more extreme 'idiotic spoutings of a clinger-on' that I've heard.