You've yet to show Peter being more skilled or better fighter than Langford. I'm still waiting for any evidence...
A lot of people have different opinion than you on that subject and I'd say majority of them have much higher knowledge about boxing than you do.
60s Ali. He wasn't the best puncher, but from pretty much every other perspective he was Elite. Pretty sure he proved that over and over during that decade.
Langford is more skilled easily and versatile too! Remember observe carefully we went over this in the Jack Johnson thread!
How could you ever pick Ali ?!?? If we shrink him down, he won't have his reach and size advantage (which he enjoyed over most of his opponents in the 60s), so he'll be easier to rough up, push around and to hit. Ali leaned back to avoid getting hit, that's not the proper way to do it. But since he'll be smaller, he'll be closer to hit. Also, his already poor punching power will diminish even more
60s Ali would be smaller, according to the rules of the thread. He'll be like Roy Jones. Sure, he will beat some opponents on pure speed and reflexes, but will get torn to shreds by others who will walk through his punches (eevn weaker now that he's small) with relative ease.
Not a fan of Ali's style at all but YES he's number 1. No question. He wasn't lying when he said he was the greatest. The career, the era he fought in, how he won his fights from a youngster to a hardened veteran. Every ounce of his style and mental attitude was tested and this guy passed it all. True legend. Tyson himself said so "Ali looks more like a model than a fighter but he's an animal ,a Trex with a pretty face, he will take you into deep waters and drown you, there is no one like him". Tyson also said it was his concentration, "hes dead tired but he keeps going he would rather die than lose".
Langford is much better inside fighter, Langford had more ways to attack you - he could swarm opponent, he could fight outside with his freakish range for his height and he could go full inside with grappling and uppercuts. I don't say that Langford is better than Tyson at HW, but he's undoubtly more versatile. Defensively, Tyson had much better head movement but Langford has his advantages as well. He could parry jabs extremely well, he used different types of guard. He was harder to solve than Tyson, he had much more experience. It's not surprising that Tyson fell of very quickly when he lost his explosiveness and speed as he got older, while Langford still could beat giants while being old, half blind and overweighed.
Holyfield is above Marciano all-time at heavyweight alone Career vs Career, it isn't even that close. Holyfield is clearly above.