Could We Realistically Expect Langford To Have Success V Modern Super Heavies?

Why ? Valuev was much more bigger fighter( taller and heavier) than Fury or Wilder and he was beatable.
Two mediocre and not too big fighters Chagaev and Haye proved this. And not to mention Valuev's underrated
great and Fury's and Wilder's -maybe- Joshua's questionable chin. Moreover i can't imagine Pajkic,Sconiers and the very old Wladimir klitschko (who looked featherfisted against Fury or Jennings) would knock down the prime
Sam Langford.

 

Don't forget the modern day "Super-heavyweight" fighters ass-lickers' well-known argument ! These(big old-timers) weren't skilled fighters like Fury or another actual lumbering top guys.

 

Bill Tate 6'6" - multiple bouts with Tate usually having more losses than wins on his record.

George Godfrey 6'3" - 6-3-1, 5-1-1 and 1-0-0 being his record at the time of there three meetings.

Jim Cameron 6'2" - 210 and 13-2-2 at the time.

Harry Will 6'2" - Not even remotely close to being a super heavyweight.

Bill Lang 6'1" - Sub 200 pounder.

Bearcat Wright 6'1" - 5-5-1, 4-4-3, 4-4-2, 1-2-1 and 1-1-1 at the time of their meetings.

Langford is on the top shelf of ATG rankings but the above don't get him over the line in this thread and nor are these guys overly "just as big".

 

No.

 

Jim Cameron 210 ? And Wilder ? He was only 214 pounds against the old Ortiz.

 

You forgot to subtract 2 inches from everyone's listed height like you did for the modern heavies.

And I'm tacking on an extra one inch penalty for you trying to get clever. Harry Wills is now 5'11. Way to go, ace.

 

I don't consider Wilder a SH anyways - too light. He is however reasonably proven against them much to the chargrin of present day modernists.

Cameron's not a notable fighter in any way shape or form regardless. Wilder is 40-zip, a champ and has some top 10 scalps. Cameron has more losses than wins.

You can't just pluck these sort of guys out as proof Langford can compete with the top Super Heavies. It doesn't cut.

 

Only the record means nothing i think every stupid or not stupid boxing fans know.
The best win/wins is much more important and the today super-heavyweights' best wins old or
mediocre fighters

 

Ok. Who's superheavyweight by your humble opinion ? Otherwise you can prove nothing against Langford.
I think Langford would beat Fury for example and i think you say no ! 50%-50% draw.

 

Struggling to decipher this. Whose record means nothing? So every heavyweight today is "old or mediocre"?

 

By my "humble opinion" obvious superheavyweights are guys like the Klits, Lewis, Joshua, Breazeale, Whyte would scrape in, Martin etc.

What am i trying to prove against Langford?

Langford beat Fury? He'd struggle to reach him and if he did Fury is quite durable.

 

This HW era is so abysmal I think Langford might well take down a few guys. Not so sure he'd beat the top guys though.

 

Bill Tate was only an inch shorter than Fury, but Langford still knocked him silly. Zack Page, who isn't much bigger than Langford and has the same reach as Langford had no problem timing Fury. The major difference is that Langford is a lot more skilled than Page and can punch.

 

Langford's heavyweight era was far more abysmal.

Someone please point to the charging 5-7 powerpuncher who has made a dent in the heavy division in the past 40 years.

Oh, but I forget, Langford was made of that magical fairy dust only in existence 100 years in the past.

 

Bill Tate was beaten every other fight. Fury's record is excellent vs his peers.

Fury pitched a shut out against Zack Page in his 13th pro fight. Page is over 4 inches taller than Langford for starters. Fury has improved a lot since then regardless.

Here is some reporting from their bout -

Fury used his long reach and much larger 6'9 frame to bully Page around and push him against the ropes to unleash combinations. Page covered up for the most part but wasn't able to put up much of a fight. Standing at 6'0, Page was having a lot of trouble landing on Fury due to the difference in height.

Imagine someone 4 inches shorter against a better more experienced version. It's a tough gig. Langford's best weight as said previously is more like 170-180. He's also short. Much bigger ATG destroyers like Mike Tyson are going to struggle somewhat with that sort of size at times. It's no biggie.