Sam Langford v Robert Fitzsimmons

Good matchup here. I think Langford was similar in size to "Sailor" Tom Sharkey who Fitz handily defeated.... It is just that although he was tough as nails, was in in great condition, and strong as an ox - Sharkey was no where near as talented a fighter in all departments as Langford was.... Fitz was easily hit by Corbett and it would be no different against langford except that Langford was a devastating puncher. Corbett was not.

Langford KO 8 Fitzsimmons

 

A hell of a fight but I favor Sam, slightly.

 

Langford looks better on the film I've seen. Faced the better Heavyweights as well.

Langford sparks him.

 

I dont know that Langford's opposition was any better than Fitz's.
Fitz faced Jeffries x2 Corbett,Johnson,Sharkey x2 Maher x2,Creedon.and Choynsky.Pretty good quality imo.
But I agree,Langford has the edge in this fight I think a late stoppage is on the cards.

 

Wills :deal

 

When two big hitters meet, the one with a significant edge in durability wins 9 times out of 10. Langford all the way.

 

Was Wills better than Jeffries ,Johnson,Corbett,Sharkey ,or Choynsky?
A 39 year old Langford ,fat and half blind still went the distance with him ,and a 33 year old Sam kod Harry.

 

I think part of the reason -- part -- that Corbett hit Fitzsimmons was that Jim wasn't hitting hard, and it wasn't a points fight, so Fitzsimmons fought aggressively, defending himself about enough to avoid being put out but not really worrying about getting cut or scraped up. The other part of the reason Fitzsimmons got hit was that Corbett was a very good points puncher.

Fitzsimmons would have fought Langford different, and Langford probably wasn't the sort of points puncher Corbett was. So I don't think Langford would have landed on Fitz near as often as Corbett did. On the other hand, Langford had (or used) vastly more power than did Corbett, so Langford wouldn't have needed so many punches.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I always think Fitz was more of a counter-puncher than a hit and mover at heavyweight surely this would help him aaginst langford as the speed difference would be much different between he and Langford than langford and Heavyweights meaning Fitz had the means to counter as Langford came in for his flurries.

Bt i dont know too much about Langford to comment on it in detail

 

This is a great fight, i was actually going to start a similar thread but for time, but I think that this fight is wasted (from a classic forum view) as a standalone fight. Clearly it is a fight that needs to be a series of fights. Both fighters started out as lightweights and progressed through to Heavyweights. I would like to see a match at Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light heavyweight and Heavyweight fully divided and analysed by some of our historical posters. At this stage i think that Fitz would end up with the edge and the better record but it may only be a 2-3 win. This series would quite possibly be the greatest pound for pound series ever, since not only are these two guys arguably the two best pound for pound fighters ever, but they fought at the same weights as each other. When i get time, i intend to analyse each of these fights individually, with an emphasis on record, hopefully some of the others may look at these matches at other weights, as well.