Loads, Beterbiev would probably KO Jack Dempsey. Imagine Dempsey trying to deal with the speed and movement of a 175 Roy Jones? I’d pick plenty of guys over Dempsey at 175, he was a good puncher but limited
Go buy a boxing book. What ****ing facts are you talking about ?!? I already told you I was talking about your claims regarding his skill and punching power, not about his reach and weight. Your claims are not facts. I am going against nothing. Size doesn't just equate to weight, but also to height. Langford is around 170 cm tall, while Dempsey was 185 cm. Also, Langford carried more fat than Dempsey at that weight, given his small stature. Simple, cause he's telegraphing it in many instances, since he's the smaller guy and kinda has to hit higher, so he throws something that resembles and overhand punch.
Langford had the chest of a Sonny Liston and the shoulders and arms to match,his upper tprso was huge.He was a giant standing on short legs.
There's probably a lot of guys who would have given him trouble, likely for an extended period of time, great fighters are capable of the extraordinary. I agree with an earlier poster who said something to the effect of how he wouldn't favor any of them over Dempsey but they're capable of beating him. One thing that always strikes me when I see footage of Dempsey is how big he looks for a guy 6'1" and 190 pounds. Then you remember the guy had enormous wrists and a frame that very likely could have supported an extra 20-25 pounds.
Which book taught you such a ridiculous view on boxing? Reach and weight measurements. So you're starting to get the difference between facts and opinions. Remember that everything you stated here is just your claim. So Joe Louis is bigger than Mike Tyson, confirmed. Watch Jeannette fight, he was lean and mean. Show examples.
Michael /Spinks has the ability to make Dempsey look very bad. And Dempsey is wide open for that spinx jinx right hand
Boxing evolution, just like that of any other sport, is a FACT, not my view. Unless a sport drastically changes, modern athletes are usually better than past ones, that's how things work. Again, jumping to a stupid conclusion/example, that is completely different to what you stated and what I replied to. In your example, at a particular moment of their respective careers, Langord and Dempsey weighed about the same, 186 lbs Langford and 187 Dempey. I stated that despite them weighing the same, Dempsey was taller, thus he was bigger, since it's also about height and not just weight. In this comparison you made of Tyson and Louis, they don't weigh the same, Tyson is heavier. Yet Louis is taller, so you cannot say definitively that one is bigger than the other. Watch the damn footage. Do you really expect me to indicate to you the exact point of time in the video where he does it ?!? One thing I will admit though, and that is that although I'm not impressed one bit by Langford, he looks a million times better than Fitzsimmons. I don't think I've ever seen anyone looking worse than him.
1. It doesn't answer my question. 2. Why do you assume that boxing stopped evolving since the 1980s? It doesn't make any sense. It's not stupid, it's very good analogy. Height isn't size and it doesn't matter in boxing. What matters in boxing is reach and weight. Langford wasn't at disadvantage at either. Louis weighed close to Tyson after WWII. Yes, I expect that from you. If that's so easy, do that. Even ones he beat?
Langford was a freak of nature. His arms were massive and long. He is the case for NOT using physical measurements to measure the ability of a boxer. If body measurements and muscles were all it took, Joshua would be the GOAT, and he's not even the DOG.
At 21 ,when he fought Baer, Louis weighed 198lbs At 20, when he fought Berbick, Tyson weighed 221 3/4lbs. Spot the difference?
I'm not using measurements to measure a fighters abilities,just their physical size. Is there another way that I've been missing for the past 73 years?