Would Langford Be Badly Beaten BY Modern Heavies?

You're right, I shouldn't have expected that to work, however, reasoning with you doesn't work either. You simply won't buy it, even though you're quite clearly wrong.

I can back up my arguments, believe me, but sometimes such madness whips up even the most sane people into a storm. As far as I'm concerned, you're an old stalagmite of false beliefs rather than an objective, critical poster like so many others here that I rate.

That's me done. Oh, and a closing statement: Langford is #4 on my pound-for-pound list. Interpret that how you will, o' wise boxing historian

P.S. - I've had enough of your boring ****. Don't mistake vehemence for stupidity.

 

Langford would not do well with either K-bro........ Sam lacks too much size and strength to hang in there with these two monster who can fight back...

MR.BILL

 

Just lost a big post, maybe that's my comeuppance huh? :hey

It's a shame because I'd started to regard you as one of the more reasonable across the board.

Janitor, however, stands little less than a religious zealot, clinging onto outdated beliefs and ignoring all physical suggestion put before him and instead testifying to old-time abilities that must have been nothing short of super human.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it if you can take the criticism of more reasonable people. I've been reading Janitor's posts for a few years now, and though he comes across as a nice bloke it doesn't detract from the fact he talks **** most of the time. Sorry if I'm not quite as nice.

Maybe my weakness is that I get riled by ignorance. Am I ignorant? Would Langford really beat the entire top ten heavyweights today?

Very much doubt it. I'd expect him to fare similarly as to how Napoles would if pitched against the top ten light heavyweights - of any era.

There is nothing to me that suggests the small amount of 220lbs+ heavyweights who Langford beat were any better than the current crop. Fighting one after another, he'd lose at least 75% of his bouts - Janitor reckons it'd be down to little else than schedule, but I beg to differ. The classier of the bunch, such as Wladimir Klitschko, would box defensively at range en route to an easy if unspectacular knockout. Please tell me if you object. It is my strong, objective opinion that sheer physical size often overcomes an even large gulf in skill, depressing though it may be. Some people just won't admit it.

I've been amiable for a time now, never to my knowledge having offended Janitor in the past, but some people need to wake up and get a grip.

Now shut up you old coot; improve your writing ability and I'll repair my attitude :yep

 

Another **********, great :-(

 

To be fair, Janitor does have some weird ****ing views. He's still avoided my question on his opinion that Jess Willard would cause Muhammad Ali difficulty.

 

He really said that?

Looks like my perspective is safe.

 

Janny you missed my reply pal

made me LOL fbut to be fair mate Janitor might have some kooky views but no reason to overboard insulting him. Like many he has his favourites and fantasy fights are the place your favourites win ever time. Janitor and Mcvey are gentlemen of the Classic

I'm actually curious to his love of Janitor's love of all things old, as he isn't that old himself, early 30s I think, he's posted about pre-Sullivan stuff in the past

 

Another thought to why I also think a lot of people chat **** about Langford is the fact that he is by no means a top 10 H2H or anywhere close in other divisions like Middleweight and Lightweight so why, when I know a limited amount of information on Langford, expect he could beat David Haye for example at heavyweight weighing 170-180 pounds, when no one would give him a chance against the likes of Michael spinks, Michael Moorer or Gene Tunney at light heavyweight.

Maybe comparing greats like GT MS and MM to Haye may be unfair but I doubt you'll find many that woukd pick him over someone like Ward, Dawson or someone more low key like JCC Jr or Carl Froch.

 

I would make Langford even money, at bare minimum with Tunney, Spinks, and Moorer. He's like Dwight Muhammad Qawi with Fosters punch.

 

Sounds like you really thought the stylistic match-ups through there rather than just say they're all 50-50 fights :roll:

 

Ok...

Tunney near his prime was incapable of keeping Harry Greb off of him. Langford would struggle with the jab for the first fight, and probably drop it by unanimous decision. To win the second, he would have to sacrifice his face eating jabs, ducking under Tunneys right to crack home hooks, working the body and landing in clinches. Its all a matter of how long the fight is and whether Tunney can take the pounding. Over 10 rounds he probably.could. But I think he losses it over the championship rounds, and gets stopped over 20.

Against Spinks, he's facing a Qawi who's not going to gas and if anything punches harder. Much like Qawi, Langford will struggle to land for a while, but he's going to start landing eventually and if.Qawi can kinda sorta almost drop him, Langford will. Spinks punches harder than Tunney though, is awkward as teenaged sex, and uses his elbows like ginsu knifes so i'm much less confident i'm giving this one to Langford.

Moorer is big and strong, and a hell of a hitter and a southpaw to boot, but he's easily led into traps and dragged into a slugfest, and while i'm sure he hit hard enough to drop Sam (multiple times) I'm not sure he can finish the job. Whereas I feel Langford will.

 

No, Tunney, nearing his prime got too big for Greb, as Greb himself said. At heavyweight, I think Tunney gives Sam a lesson, a pick I am much more confident in giving than that of Schmeling. Sam had a way of following his foe in straight lines and leaving himself open for the right, which would play into Tunney's masterful footwork and stout, quick punching. Sam always has a chance of scoring a KD, but Tunney had a tough beard and rose from Dempsey's best efforts.