Sam Langford vs. Joe Louis

I did not know he said this, but it accords with my logic of what is most likely true.
Most people & listing overstate or at least round up height.
With occasional countervailing habits-because they did not want to play positions of even taller men-& the former likely to gain a psychological advantage-Kevin Garnett robbed himself of likely 2", saying he was only (ha ha) 6'11". He likely is 6' 13" ;-)
Another B-Baller Kevin, Durant, is listed at 6' 10".

But he said he tells girls he is 7', & in reality is 6' 10 & 3/4 "when measured without shoes by the NBA.

 

I've most commonly read 6ft 1.5 ins for Louis, too.

Plenty of listed heights are doubtful to me. 6ft 1.5ins for Louis looks about right to me.

 

There were men who had seen both in action who thought so.

 

Hey buddy, The thread says, 'Sam Langford vs Joe Louis' and thats it. Nothing about prime or peak or weight. I stated I disagree with you suggesting different weights and if Louis was in his peak or not since Im speaking of Louis at 218lbs and obviously past his prime that the fight could have gone eitherway.
Now if were talking about Louis around 200lbs as you inserted into the conversation then no I dont think Langford would have done well against that Joe Louis.
At around 200lbs Louis would still have a clear size advantage along with speed. And I would put up the house that Louis wins.
Do you see how that works? Different questions = different replies = different conversation.
As usual with you though you attempt to highjack coversations by inserting bits and pieces of information that really have nothing to do with either the main subject/thread or the conversation itself.
And then as usual with you, we are debating something that has nothing to do with the original subject or where the conversation started.
I like some of your post but its like going down a rabbit hole with you most times.
Its funny you take a shot at my ego when maybe you should check your own. No disrespect.

 

1. Its customary in fantasy fights to assume both boxers are prime, unless stated otherwise.
2. You said "Joe Louis seems pretty cut and dry since we're talking about HW champ Louis". Louis never weighed 218lbs, or over, when HW champ.

 

Customary to who? This isent a secret cult society where Im supposed to know what posters really meant even though its not said in the title and descriptions because everthing is coded with customs. Lol!!
Also, I did not say Louis was champion at the time. I said HW champ Joe louis which is "Customary" on how present and past Champions are referred too.

 

It is not ego to correct a mistake like about size-especially when you are using it as the seemingly sole justification for victory.
Although I agree about the likely results.
I cannot make sense of this third sentence, the grammar is too garbled:
"I stated I disagree with you suggesting different weights and if Louis was in his peak or not since Im speaking of Louis at 218lbs and obviously past his prime that the fight could have gone eitherway."

You presented a weight for Louis with no qualification.
I accurately stated this was his heaviest weight, against Charles, & way past his prime.
Anyone will believe that you you thought Lewis was this weight at his prime-since you used their relative sizes as the rationale of who would win.
And I agree (that is part of the reason) I would pick Louis.

I also corrected you on his height, which you neglected to mention.

But when any thread or person discusses match ups, the normal-& almost constantly & logically presumed-belief is everyone is referring to the best versions of both.

Nor is it hijacking a conversation to make said correction.
And when I add dress precisely what you seemed to say, that is not inserting irrelevant information-as if it was even something new.

It does have to do with the subject when you use the statistics to back up your conclusion.

Anyway I never have the slightest resentment if someone presumes to correct me on statistics-it is just a question of which numbers are correct & verifiable.
We should welcome getting the basic facts correct-there are whole threads devoted to arcane information like the size, weight &/or wingspan of fighters.

If any of us use only say the heaviest or lightest weight of a fighter, without any indication that we MEANT to match up a (usually very) pre or post prime version against the best version of the other man...
It must be noted. Certainly if we wanna try to get close to The Truth-including the speculation oflikely outcomes.

Oh by the way, I am no expert on Sam Langford, but besides being only something ~ 5' 7" (with long arms)...
There is considerable debate at what his peak weight was.
Often times folks pick sizes somewhat under 185 lbs.
Of course it can be ambiguous because what weight he was best at against similar size opponents might be DIFFERENT from the weight he would have been best against all comers...

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=sam+langford+best+weight

 

I saw you post here after I said the same thing.
And some other facts-it seemed he thought that was Louis at his very best-when it was at his very heaviest only, & after he lost the HW title.
But of course unless it is qualified as a sub par version vs. the best of another man, it is not only customary, but eminently logical, to bring both men in at their absolute peak.

Although I think we all agree on the outcome anyway.
I am not even sure if the absolute best version of Langford was 185 or smaller.
But either way, & at his height, it would be extraordinary indeed if he could be favored against The Brown Bomber.

How much a sport & its combatants naturally advance is also ambiguous.
For example-could the similarly sized Dwight Muhammed Quai have been as dominant as Langford if born in the 19th century?
It is really hard to know.

 

Before I reply to your post I would like to ask 2 questions. What does "Garbled Grammer mean?" In the United States that all there is yet everyone understands. 2nd Question is are you from UK or Europe?

 

Louis kO 1.

Louis had a great, powerful jab. Louis was a great inside combination puncher. Louis was deadly accurate with his shots.

Langford was short. Langford had zero head movement. Langford held too much (everyone back then did). Langford, despite being short, had long arms and no real inside punching game. (Mostly holding and trying to hit with the other hand.)

Louis brutalizes him. The question isn't whether Louis stops him or not. It's does Louis actually ever miss a punch. Everything he throws lands flush on Langford.

 

Garbled grammar means the language is mixed up.
So it is unclear what you mean-that sentence I quoted COULD have several meanings, but we must guess or speculate about it.
You sentence about "In the United States that all there is yet everyone understands" is another example.
We cannot know what you mean by "all there is"-If you mean everyone writes incomprehensible statements, you are very wrong.

You saying everybody understands-also incorrect.
I am not attacking you at all.
It is just a fact that I & others cannot be sure what these things mean.

Lastly, I am from the U.S., not UK or Europe.

 

Its good to know your from the U.S. So am I and im not used to grammer police or pretentiousness. No disrespect to my friends across the pond!
Thanks for replying, give me a moment so I could read the othher 7 paragraphs you sent me and respond. Standby please...

 

This is where you should specify.

 

Take your time.
But it is demonstrably FALSE to phrase it as me being the "grammer (sic) police".
NOR was there a shred of pretension.
I explained how I-or others-could only guess at what specific statements meant.

Unless you can show how you either used the language properly, OR we can divine what you meant in those statements...
Time to call yourself on a defensive reaction that is not rational.
You presumed negativity on my part that was not in evidence.
The likely reason that you made it unnecessarily personal is Ego: that you did not like being shown that delimited statements were incomprehensible.

For all I knew English could have been your 17th language.
You were not being insulted; it was just impossible to know what those comments meant.
Save the negative assumptions for those who might really be putting you down.

Which I have not seen so far.