How well would Sam Langford do today?

How many of them have you seen?

He's not primitive and that's the point. He set up his punches really well, he had good reflex, he could slip punches just alright, he could cut off the ring better than most modern fighters and he used crossarm guard at times. There are some aspects of his style that doesn't look modern, like his parrying-based guard and less combinations, but it's more related to the differences in equipment than his shortcomings.

I'd love to see your breakdown of Langford's primitive skillset compared to modern geniuses like Wilder, Joshua or even Foreman.

 

Cause the boxers back then were not as skilled as those that came from the 40s onwards.

I think he is. My money's on him to beat Langford.

I doubt I am the only one who thinks this. Anyway, for me, Sugar Ray Robinson is the best P4P boxer of all time. As for best P4P puncher, that is almost impossible to determine. If I had to pick someone, I might go with Duran.

I disagree, they had primitive skills. Someone like Mayweather would look like and alien to Langford, he wouldn't be able to lay a glove on him.

 

Again, how many fights of them have you seen?

Joe Gans was more skilled fighter than Canelo.

 

Go watch Joe Gans and tell me more.

 

We do technical analysis here from time to time, but you've just arrived and already started shooting your mouth off, swinging your opinion around like a mace.
I bet you haven't delved into past threads to see what's been discussed or said. Nope, you just assume.
Listen more, talk less about stuff you really don't understand.
Posters like you are so predictable, and cheap.
In any event, looking forward to more revelations from you in the future.

 

Based on what? Please explain what makes them less skilled.

 

Langford, to me, looks like a klecksographic Archie Moore. An excellent pressure fighter, good jab (Moore's was a great; better than Langford's, IMO), a great counter-puncher and someone who clearly realised at some point that learning the skills was more important than their power. They built their style around the tools they had, and their experience molded them into extremely high class operators. IMO, Langford wasn't as skilled - could be the lack of nuance in old footage - but was tougher, grittier and spectacularly, a bigger puncher. I can't see all the elite feints and set-ups, manoeuvres and positioning in Langford's fights that I can in Moore's. I doubt he was as good defensively, or at countering, but he was clearly good at both. Again, could be footage. But I can see much better knowledge of hand-fighting and grappling. That sort of thing was much more common in Langford's era, though.

 

that’s a pose for a photo.

 

You can't jab properly out of that stance , or with wide feet. . Langford had no jab , absolutely none. Neither did Joe Jennete. He shot his right hand backwards when he attempted to jab in order to keep his balance. Very poor technique

 

It's a pose for a photo....

 

Its a pose. For a photograph.

 

Nah , its the boxing stance of the time. . You see it in the Harry Greb shadow boxing clip as well

 

This content is protected

Slip, parry, feint, body jab (stepping in with it using correct technique taught by modern coaches) Perfectly balanced the entire time.

Why does his stance look closer to James Tony’s than it does the photo he posed for?

Time Machine Sam licks your favorite fighter, it’s ok, get over it.

 

now you’re trolling

 

Show me a photo of boxer posing in that stance from the past 60 years ?
They stopped posing like that because the stance changed as boxing became more skillful and refined

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/13/f1/54/13f1547eaca508e2b63f9d633a283c41.jpg