Max Schmeling vs Sam Langford

I would look at it the other way.

The number of times Langford fought the same opponent, was generaly what alowed them to bag a win over him.

If Langford has been granted the luxury of substantial time to prepare for contests, and only having to fight a given opponent 2-3 times, then I doubt that Flynn or McVea would have picked up a win over him.

Of the fighters you have listed, Wills alone could have proved his master in that scenario.

 

Keep in mind also that by the time Wills really started to dominate Langford that Sam must have been getting pretty discouraged and disillusioned with the sport and it showed in his inconsistent (at times) performances and the way he was showing up on fight night (often described in the press as "hog fat"). Poor guy had been trying for years and years to get a title shot in ANY division, but to no avail. He was stuck in a seemingly endless round-robin against the same men. I'm sure on many nights he just didn't care.

At some point he must have just said "Screw it...if I can't get a title shot I may as well just enjoy myself" and embraced the party life.

It showed.

 

It was the same with Peter Jackson.

They were both prety dedicated and consistant, untill they realised that they were not going to get their title shot whatever they did.

 

Also not yet stated was Sams encroaching blindness towards the latter chapter of his career.
The naysayers blur the lines that clearly distinguish his prime from his past prime days.
Max was not a fighter of greatness. If he was Blackburn woudda said so at some point, objective opinion or no.
He had the highest praise for the greatness of Lee Ramage. A fighter who should have stayed at Lt Heavy. He would have been an ATG at that weight.

 

McVey not only beat Langford in Australia he had him on the deck in the process. Sometimes the four black marvels fought to win ,sometimes there was an element of pre-arrangement about their contests.

 

The Australian fight is fascinating, because it reflected the difference between scoring in America and Australia at the time. The American press criticised the decision because most of the punches McVea landed were jabs, which were often not scored in America.

Langford landed less punches, but the the American press thought he had won, because the punches that he landed were seen as "damage causing punches" as oposed to "point scoring punches".

By todays standards, McVea would almost certainly have been entitled to the decision. The fact that jabs were often not scored in America, might explain the fact that fighters from that era often led with hooks.

 

When did that change? Clearly by the '20's jabs were an integral part of the offense. Look at Leonard and Tunney. Where is the tipping point

 

Who made Blackburn the divine judge of boxing greatness ? :huh

 

Max Schmeling was a lot better than people here are giving him credit for :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx-W672FQzg&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqRVSG2VemU&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZdZYUy0RP0&feature=related[/ame]




From what I've seen on film, Schmeling is several notches above the likes of Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette and Jim Flynn.

 

Sam Langford :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvdt3xm3ql0[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PB7vti2ym4[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRRYS9Rh7Bk&feature=related[/ame]

 

I don't think this can be right J, many great jabbers around the turn of the century and into the 20's/30's rose to dizzy heights. Jim Driscoll won 10 of his 11 fights in the US,George Dixon was spectacularly successful,Young Griffo likewise ,and on the Blackburn theme ,one of his proteges Sammy Mandell won a world title on the strength of his jab and little else.

 

Well said.

 

Slakka.

 

Its not hard to look better than Mcvey. Schmeling had some uneven results in his career, and lost a few stinkers. While I would agree Schmeling has more conventional skill, Langford was also skilled on offense.


If you believe styles makes fights, consider this. Schemling was the boxer puncher, who himself did not take the best punch in the world. Boxer punchers can get into trouble vs attacking types if the attacking type is more durable, and can also hit. Langford was a durable stalker, who in his prime was very hard to stop.