This would have been interesting. Probably a 50/50 type of fight imo. Moore was a lot taller, but Langford was used to being the much shorter guy. Langford also had a good reach despite his height. Both, durable but I think Langford is probably the more durable here. Both great knockout artists. I like Moore's defense better. Langford likely had quicker feet. Moore had good upper body movement and his unique defense worked well to cover his torso and head. I think after feeling Langford's power, Moore would try to use his jab and would keep an active defense, while land some nice power shots here and there. I'm going with Moore with the decision. But, if Langford managed to bully his way in and chop Moore down, that wouldn't surprise me. Fight would probably need a series.
I have to go with Archie Moore. I think he proved himself against better competition for the most part.
Given a proper training camp and focus, I have a feeling that Sam would turn the trick on Moore. He was a harder single shot hitter than Marciano or Patterson, and a better, more skilled boxer than either, too. He might be the best fighter who ever graced the sport, and if not number 1, he is number 2.
Fight 15 rounds I favor Archie Moore wins on points, or by knockout. Fight 20 and more rounds I favor Sam Langford wins by knockout. The more rounds; 25 for example, it is Sam Langford's favorite. And that wins by knockout. If the fight continues (45 rounds), the circumstances are more and more on Sam Langford's side. Sam Langford Vs. Archie Moore, what's a showdown? 126 KOs Vs. 132 KOs
Seamus, Seamus, Seamus... I'm surprised at you! Picking Langford as more skilled than Patterson or Moore.
Excellent match up,McVey. And I don't think it's been done before. I've always admired both fighters. Will have a good think.
