How well would Sam Langford do today?

Well in a modern setting if we just took his bodily gifts and gave him a new trainer/conditions he would be the greatest to lace them up (again) he was something else on paper now taking Sam as he was... well it would be like pitting a Chimp against a Roman gladiator his sheer bodily gifts very well could negate the tools and educated fighting mind of the Gladiator. Sams own sense of timing, distance and range could very well make his crude technique irrelevant, application is always senior to technique.

We have a fighter that while shot had the ability to knockout fully fledged HWs and was durable/strong enough to be in contention for being one of the best HWs of his era one that could make 155-160lbs EASY today... he was a specimen.

 

He came from the line of Ares for certain.

 

God you try hard

 

Agreed Jan

 

Langford does have some crudeness / oldness to his style, however he also has skills current fighters don't, such as his extensive parrying ability. I'm not saying he is the 'best' oldie I've seen on film skill wise (Driscoll, Wilde, Leonard and McFarland fit that bill for me) but he definitely isn't the worst, and his attributes and results speak for themselves.

 

Nah, nothing wrong with Lang just an Oldie but the guy posting acts like a boxing sage that can see what everyone else cannot and everyone's just dumb lol- like he has taken the Dempsey red pill and went on to be trained in Jedi Master Benny Leonards secret Ghetto monastery yet he has no content to any of his claims and his intent is as transparent as glass.

And Modern isn't always less crude Kil Moon compared to Benny Leonard for one example.

 

All this back and forth discussion we have about fighters of yesteryear competing today ( sometimes it seems the most posted topic ) seems to me a bit overcooked, surely ( don't call me Shirley ) its all about hitting the other guy in there with you, as hard and often as you can No!
So on that basis ole Tham was very good at both, no denials please.... keep well.

 

can we see some sort of boxing analysis video from you ,since you know so much . We can both do one on Langford!

 

I don't think Langford looks crude on film. He used slightly different defensive techniques due to smaller gloves and more inside fighting, but his timing and head movement are subtle yet effective.

That said, Leonard looks better than anyone else from that era.

 

his use of the parry and jab at the same time and his rear arm going across his whole face is how he mostly defended jabs. While head movement is a nice tool in the tool kit the idea that its the best way to defend your face from jabs is looking at boxing thru a modern lens. Leonard looks the most modern and really good on film but I wouldnt say the best (again thats looking at boxing thru a modern lens.)

 

This content is protected

 

I also don't think he looks bad on film, perhaps a bit lackadaisical against Flynn, a little too seek and destroy against Jeanette. We would have to have more footage to see things like how he adjusts his style over the course of a fight or against different sized opponents, especially against Wills jab... But we should try not to read too much into the available footage. He looks like he knows what he is doing and what he is doing is trying to knock the other guy the F out.

 

Yeah and the results speak for themselves!

 

Sam Langford skill wise would be so bad compared to modern boxers that he wouldn't be allowed to box. A 100 year old guy in a wheel chair would have better skill than these guys from that era.

 

This is certainly fair, imo. Not sure what the guys who think he looks brilliant on the available film are seeing though.