FANTASY FIGHT: Sam Langford vs Ezzard Charles (15 Rounds/Poll)

Grok picks Sam Langford, though I favor Charles

Tale of the tape
Langford: 5'6½–5'7½", ~74" reach, barrel chest, long arms for his height. Fought from lightweight to heavyweight. Crushing power, jab, hooks, uppercuts, feints, inside fighting. Hundreds of fights. Jack Johnson avoided him after beating a 156-pound Langford.


Charles: 6'0", 73" reach. Textbook boxer-puncher, stiff jab, counters, defense, ring IQ. Beat Walcott, Louis (218 lbs), Moore (three times). Not a one-punch killer at heavyweight; stopped people with accumulation and timing.


Langford is much shorter. Reach is almost even because of those arms. Charles has the height and the “modern” (for 1950) boxing frame. Langford has the denser punching power and the dirtier, more complete inside game.


How it plays
Charles wants this at range: jab to the forehead, step, right hand when Langford comes up. That is how he beat bigger, slower heavyweights. Langford will not stay at the end of a jab. He feints, dips, and gets to the chest. Once he is there, he rips the body and throws hooks Charles did not see from Walcott or late Louis.


Charles’s defense was excellent. Langford’s offense was designed to walk through excellent defenses. The question is whether Charles can keep a 5'7" wrecking ball off him for 15 rounds without getting worn down to the body.


Langford’s chin and experience against every style of his era are historic. Charles’s chin was good; he was dropped (Overlin, Marciano). Langford only needs to get set once.

Edges
Height / outside boxing: Charles
Power / inside fighting: Langford
Jab: slight Charles (stiffer), Langford’s jab was still a real weapon
Experience vs all-time opposition: Langford (volume and quality across weights)
Peak physicality at 180–185: close; Charles is the “bigger” athlete, Langford the denser puncher


Pick
Langford by late stoppage or close decision. Charles can win rounds on the jab and can make Langford miss. Over a championship distance Langford’s body work and the threat of the hook should force Charles to fight smaller than he wants. If Charles keeps it a pure boxing match and never lets Langford plant, Charles wins a decision. That is hard to do against this man for 15 rounds.

 

Hi Buddy.
I am confused , you say you favour Charles, then pick Langford ?
have I got that right.
Mike.

 

Charles wide UD

 

I am going to go with close Charles UD

I think Charles is one of the few guys who has the combination of defense and offense to frustrate the offensively minded Langford.

Langford will have plenty of success, but i figure Charles will sweep the early rounds before Langford will break through his defense and start putting pressure on him. Charles will rally late and it would be a tough one.

Charles 8-7 UD close.

 

This fight being over the 15 rounds then I'd say Charles by close decision.
But if say it were a longer stretch, old time fight duration of 20 plus rounds, then I think Langford by ko.

 

Yes - I see it like this too.

Charles has the style and skillset to offset Langford's dynamite, keep him from getting set, negate his inside work, but he will have to take his lumps and I don't think that by round 15, Ezz isn't tired and somewhat banged up. Let it go longer, I wouldn't be surprised if Langford sparks him between rounds 20 - 25.

 

Spot on mate

 

There is a possibility that Langford stops Charles late on but the more likely outcome is Ezzard wins on points

 

Charles via decision

 

I say this not as a joke but I genuinely think "Boxing Evolution" should actually be cited as a reason why Charles takes it here. Boxing had evolved too much by Charles time compared to Langfords for the latters superior athleticism to make up the gap.

 

Charles pretty easily. Langford fought in an era when modern boxing techniques weren't even fully developed, and I don't care how hard he hit, you are talking about a guy in Charles who beat Joe Louis (albeit a faded version) and went 15 with Marciano.

 

I just contested you on another thread, but recognize you know mucho about boing!
I am no expert on Ye Olden Daaaze Fisticuffs, but I did think Langford looked very good on film.
And some do not recognize how old rules made awkward techniques reasonable.

But maybe you are right.
The question is could a man from the early 20th century be enough of a boxing savant, perhaps more by instinct & trial & error, that he might be enough of an outlier that he may beat such an accomplished mid-century boxer?