Langford vs. Charles at 175

Look , without question it is an all time match up ... two of the four all time pound for pound best (Greb/Robinson round out my four) going at it at possibly their best weights ... even more exciting that a Wlad K bout ...

 

I think Langford would be a stylistically similar matchup as Moore or Bivins were to Charles.

I think Charles' superior footwork and all-around versatility would give him the edge.

 

Langford is underrated and was avoided in his time at HW. The Cobra was a great fighter, but Langford is a little too much. Although the 175 weight helps Charles, I don't think it would have made much difference to Langford.

Langford by KO.

 

I think its debatable whether Walcott is better than Wills,Jeannette,or Mcvey and he certainly isnt as good as Johnson,imo and Langford beat most of them.

I think this is a pickem fight,and if there is a ko it would be Langford who scored it.
Langford was also fighting the three coloured supremos I mentioned very regularly,his resume stands up to Charles own excellent one imo.

Which light heavy Charles beat do you think would master Langford?
No one should get too dogmatic about their prediction here,its too close a call imo.

 

Fantastic analysis atsch

 

I really don't go a lot on Johnson. I think I'd pick Walcott to beat him.

And I think Archie Moore would give Langford a good go. It's a tougher pick than this match up I think, but I might lean towards Langford for that one.

 

Langford's biggest challenge came from big men with an excellent jab and movement ... Wills and Fulton gave him troubles but let's keep in mind these were huge heavyweights. McVey also gave him some trouble with his own excellent jab as did Johnson. However, he was a small middle when he fought Johnson. He went on to master McVey and Jeannette, two excellent heavyweights.

 

Liked to go toe-to-toe? Was in his style to take chances?

You've seen too much heavyweight Charles - admit it. A sleeker Charles was a bit quicker, more mobile and a clever boxer. Yes, he mixed up on the inside (something he could do with the best of them at 175lbs) if it was needed, but he balanced it out with long and mid range options. He was very versatile.

And there are examples of fights where Langford was perhaps not the deserved winner. Jeff Clark on at least a couple of occasions was jobbed.

People do overrate Langford, you know, sometimes implying that he was a great heavyweight. Fred Fulton and Harry Wills smashed him. Not saying Charles would beat them, but let's bring Langford back down to where he belongs.

 

Are you implying Langford was better than Marciano?

Don't, seriously. You risk being ridiculed - Marciano was clearly better, if not as proven.

And of course Langford would beat those white no-hopes - he was actually trying, unlike Johnson, who could have probably knocked them all out inside five rounds had he wished.

And of course Charles didn't hit as hard as Wills or any other big heavyweight - who said he did? He didn't need to, as he had a much more diverse set of skills.

Rocked by Satterfield? What a non-argument that is; like saying Muhammad Ali was rocked by Earnie Shavers. You know just as well as I do that Charles wasn't even that stunned and soon came back to bury Satterfield with a Foster-Quarry-esque hook.

Satterfield wasn't that great all-round, but the success he did have versus Charles came from being ultra aggressive. You can think again if that's how you think Langford would attack.

Yes, he probably does to you because you ain't seen the right footage. Marshall, Walcott I, these are the fights you need to see. As for wins - Charley Burley? Twice? Charles had him stumped. Moore, Bivins, Walcott - he didn't win these fights by slugging, you know. As I said, the right fights are what you need to see. In the '50s, Charles slowed.

This is a typical statistical argument from you, isn't it? How about I just say Langford lost over forty five times and have done with it? Because it doesn't work.

Now I've already explained these knockouts in this very thread, but if you wish:

Charles was a very different fighter before he went in the army. Talented, quick, but not strong and sturdy like he was afterwards. It's evident in his next streak, where (without counting) I believe he went 46-1, a career's worth for more modern fighters. If Charles' chin was only mediocre then I'm sure Archie Moore or Elmer Ray would have exposed it - or Jimmy Bivins and Lloyd Marshall would have repeated their previous feat.

They didn't, they were all knocked out. Charles was tremendous during this period. Infact, even the loss was controversial - he probably would have got the newspaper decision had it been in Langford's era. He avenged himself anyway with a knockout of Ray.

The streak ended at the knockout loss to Walcott, where Charles was perhaps slowing down anyway, even if just slightly. Gene Fullmer was knocked out by a similarly well-timed punch by Ray Robinson, but would you question that iron jaw? Walcott could bang, and there has never been a sweeter shot landed.

Now if you will allow Langford compromise, as in 'he took the fight on short notice' and so on, then you must allow Charles the same slack in that he was better after the army. You have to acknowledge this. Not that his previous knockdowns or losses don't count, but they don't hold as much steam.

It is Charles from '46 to '50 you have to watch out for - because after all, we're talking about primes aren't we?

 

Yes, he went toe-to-toe, but he wasn't the brawler you're implying. Far, far from it.

'Hands full with average competition.' Because Sam Langford destroyed every single one of his average opponents... Yeah, right.

The Valentino fight is actually a credit to Charles' power - he sparked the man with a wicked right hook. So goes the saying that Charles couldn't hit; and it's not like that's the only example.

Time for me to stop being defensive and attack you - show me a fight where Langford displays everything that is true to what you say

But since you ask; Walcott I and Marshall III. The best Charles was not filmed often.

Well when you keep hitting the ball at the net, one day it's going to go in, isn't it?

What has this got to do with anything? We are talking about a head-to-head matchup at their best. I already acknowledge Langford as being greater than Charles, this is a non-argument. Like me saying Archie Moore was better into old age than Charles; but we know who came out on top.

Z, you haven't improved with age, have you?

 

Charles had big power at this weight and was extremely durable he stood up to guys like Elmar Ray who was 25lbs bigger and a very big puncher. Ezzard would outbox Langford he has the speed, jab, footwork and looks far better on film. His prime footage show it was a great boxer who didn't always "mix it up" he was an excellent at counter puncher as well. Charles via UD.

 

Charles superior skillset and ring intelligence should see him thru here. Sure, Sam was a physical powerhouse and very strong man as well as puncher, but that alone is not enough to defeat someone of Ezzards pedigree.

Charles would have recognised early on most likely that fighting an inside battle with someone like Langford would not be the wisest course of action, so he would have elected to box off the backfoot and fight a cautious but effective fight behind the jab while mixing in some accurate counters and combinations before retreating out of range with his footwork against the more plodding and slower footed Langford.

Charles is capable of executing such a fightplan and I for one am confident that he would have carried it out to the finish line and won a hard fought battle on points, although if this bout ends in a knockout it would in Langford`s favour.