He wasn't that good yet beat Lewis as an amateur and was to much for Holmes so he was fired as a sparring partner,along that going 19 rounds with Tyson,i really hope you guys are trolling ,even Listons former sparring partner once got to see him in the gym and said the power comparison between Liston and Ruddock wasn't even comparable..can ppl really be this clueless to think little Sammy beats this monster puncher with size /speed and skill. :-(
Ruddock was a good fighter, but he was limited. He had durability, and power, but that was basically all he had. His punch output alone, made him pretty beatable, for world class opponents. The other part of that argument is Sam Langford, and I understand that it is hard to come to grips, with what is claimed for him. What I can promise you, is that if you research Langford, it will take you to places that you never expected. Enjoy the ride!
How exactly would Sammy be a world class opponent for him at 5'6 170 pounds? No defense hands down ,no jab,no head movement but ducking below punches?Its nonsense.Enjoy the ride to what?He looks terrible to even most amateur fighters today!atsch
Not wishing to be rude, but you are missing half of the picture here. I am not saying that you have to think what I think, but you definitely need to keep an open mind, and learn more about these early fighters.
what is there to learn he has a handful of maybe 5 fights on film and not one look anything remotely worth spanning a match pages long vs a Ruddock caliber fighter,its not brain surgery to figure this one out.Not even the most nostalgic person unless Bert sugar rose from his grave would possibly think this a realistic match.
You say a "Ruddock calibre fighter". Ruddock is about two levels under Langford on paper, and thus he is the fighter that the case has to be made for. No win by default for him, I am afraid. That means that you have to try to interpret Langford, before you have the beginning of an argument against him. This is your starting point!
Huh? :huh Folks have been making the argument against him throughout this post. The gist of it is that he was way too small and his skills though impressive in his era were not nearly advanced enough to overcome the enormous physical gap. He struggled against big men far less explosive, powerful, and skilled than Ruddock. What is the counter-argument?
Truthfully I'm probably one of the few on this site who would find this thread more interesting if it were Hagler against Langford, rather than Ruddock against him.
Yea im pretty much done here its very stupid to rationalize here...its as bad as a Klitchko vs Conn match up.
Probably isn't the question,Hagler would own Langford.But at least its more realistic or I should say believable match up.