Tyson 40lbs of muscle advantage and too much speed. I give Langford a shot against the smaller, slower Marciano though.
Langford had limitations at heavyweight .. he could be outboxed by large men with strong jabs .. I just don't see him big enough to outslug a prime Tyson ..
The problem for Sam is his best weight was around 175/180lbs, above that, [which he often was,] he was carrying unnecessary suet.
It would be very hard for a man who was essentially a quite short LHW to beat any Tyson that was not totally shot. It is not really at all a fair ask.
The version that lost to Lewis still knocks Langford spark out. You simply aren't surviving Tyson without any sort of physical advantages.
Tyson would not get inside Langford's long reach. Langford too skilful. Langford the greatest fighter ever, so obviously the best guess is he wins.
There's always a chance Tyson would eat his a$shole alive though. It's gay, but if the referee lets you get away with it ...
He'd do better than Spinks, (who took an obvious dive or was just sh!t). He'd do a Buster Douglas. Langford had a huge reach, maybe 84 inches, (my estimation based on the available footage, 75 inch is BS !) and a ramrod jab. Langford was the greatest fighter ever, that's what I've heard. Think about it. GOAT with huge gorilla arms, against Tyson who had quite short reach. No contest. Tyson was good for a while, but can't compare with GOAT.
Generally I would agree, but there is another way to fight Tyson. Simply press him on the inside. Holyfield did this successfully, but it would be interesting to see how he would cope with a shorter fighter doing it.
Langford has most of the physical advantages. He was built like a tank, and had huge reach. He's only an inch or two shorter, and weighed 200 pounds or more in some of his best heavyweight fights. He had short torso and long legs. He was mobile. Fast, powerful. Oh, and have I mentioned he was the greatest fighter of all-time ?