Langford vs Frazier

Excellent appraisal.

 

Well Frazier has 20lbs on Langford, possibly more, thats going to make a difference in the strength and its largely why I'm going with Frazier

 

Nobody in history would be able to 'ice' Frazier with one shot, that is for sure. You're talking about a fight where one guy has advantages in speed, size, possibly strength, technique etc etc. Mcvey is a known Frazier hater refusing to pick him against virtually anybody decent. He mentions the victories over Harry Wills but doesn't mention the 10 plus DEFEATS to the same fighter.

Ali, Quarry and Ellis were all sneaky punchers who had the potential to KO anyone, and in over 50 rounds against those three guys he wasn't down once...

Frazier overwhlems the game Langford to a TKO in the middle rounds.

8 oz gloves, 15 round limit

 

I dont hate Frazier. I just think he is somewhat overated,based on his ONE ATG performance against a rusty Ali.
I didnt mention Langford's losses to Wills when Sam was clearly past prime,nor did I mention Frazier's second blowout to Foreman ,or his draw with Jumbo Cummings.
Fact Langford was a proven HEAVY DUTY KO ARTIST
Fact Frazier met ONE HEAVY DUTY KO ARTIST, AND WAS BOUNCED IN BOTH FIGHTS.

 

Was sam clearly past his prime in 1914 at age 31 when a very inexeperienced Wills outpointed Sam? Yes I know when Sam traveled to Europe in 1913, he supposedly returned to America in very poor shape, never to capture his old image again...but he was still a some what trim 187lb when Wills beat him. he didn't baloon up to 200lb until later.

 

IN 1914 Wills was 25 years old and in at least his fourth year as a pro ... he was also a 6'3" 215 pound big heavyweight , stylewise a nightmare for Langford .. Wills was an excellent boxer / puncher , nothing like the 5'11" straight forward punching Frazier ..

 

Frazier was a great fighter in his own right and I feel a better heavyweight in most head to head match ups than Langford ... however, straight up he is perfect for Sam ..

 

No. Frazier matches up great with Sam. Let me be clear...Sam Langford is no George Foreman when it comes to brute power/size/strength. If Sam thinks he is going to walk in and outslug Frazier, Dempsey, and Marciano...then he is in for a rude awakening.

Frazier by Decision

 

Your point is that Langford was not a devastating puncher at heavyweight and you re 100% incorrect. You simply do not know what you do not know which is why it's fun to see how serious you are when making these points.

Langford did not have to go in and outslug with muscle and bulk as he was a much better fighter than Foreman. His skill set would allow him to carve up Frazier and take him out ... not bulldoze him like Foreman .. the bottom line is that he was a much better hitter than Dempsey, Marciano or Frazier and had the power to take any of them out.

 

This comment is so unrealistic and untrue that it's laughable. The fact that your serious with this makes it even more uproarious.

That is not my point at all. Langford was a devastating puncher. It is just Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier, Tyson, Louis, Foreman, Liston were bigger more devastating punchers at heavyweight than Sam Langford, imo.

What film are you basing this assumption off of? Langford has some glaring weaknesses on film despite clearly being an ATG fighter.

 

Considering Sam langford is one of the greatest fighters to ever step into the ring and arguably the greatest talent of all time I find some of the things I have read about him on this thread a little bizarre, examples:


# Langford was slow and his hands weren't as fast as Fraiser:

# Langford had no head movement:

# Langford had long arms but couldn't fight on the inside:

# Langford's power wouldn't carry up to a 1970's heavyweight.


Anyone who has read even the basics about Langford knows the above is not based on the reports and facts we have of the man.

The facts are Langford was known for his seriously quick hands.
He mastered every punch and could fight at range or on the inside. He was a boxer/puncher.
Langford was a master feinter.
He had a superb defence blocking punches aligned with subtle head movements and was a great counter puncher.
He had an excellent chin.

Langford really was truely great. The old historians like Fleischer and Rose had Langford right at the top of the pile.


Whether he would beat Fraiser is secondary to me, I just don't like people putting out misinformation about possibly the greatest talent in boxing history.

There are plenty of articles readily available on the net that explain what Langford was.


Could he beat Joe........why not.......Joe wasn't more skillful or powerful so Joe's size, stamina and a relentless swarming attack hold the key to his success.

Sam would come at Joe in a similar fashion as Foreman did and I would give him every chance of winning.

 

A. No one ever said Sam was slow

B. Yes I think based off the film I have seen, Joe had faster hands

He certainly shows zero head movement in the Lang Footage. Or am I making things up?

I don't think anyone here said that.

Yes...but were pitting him against a top 5-10 heavyweight of all time. I think sam was a great heavyweight, but I do not think he was a top 10 heavyweight. At 5'6 175lb, even a freak of nature like langford would be giving up huge size dimensions to highly skilled very powerful ATG heavyweights who were 6'0 + 200lb +

Now your just making things up. No one said that. I would pick Langford over any 1970s heavyweight save Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Holmes.

Reports are often sensationalized. Where are these "blazing fast" hands on film I have yet to see?

Yes he was. An ATG one too. Still, he is just 5'6 175lb coming up from 130lb facing highly talented powerful ATG 200lb 6' + heavyweight. There is a reason Sam was shelled by Jack Johnson when they met in 1906. Too much of a size difference.

It seems to me he wasn't the best techician, but had solid defense because he made up for his lack of technical skills with amazing upperbody reflexes. But I don't think he was anywhere near the technical fighter Jack Johnson was.

I don't rate Sam highly because the old historians do. I rate him highly because I like what I see on his resume.

Where is the film that showcases this "greatest talent of all time"...Show me where he compares to a Henry armstrong, willie Pep, Sugar Ray Robinson on film? I think Joe Louis looks far more talented on film than Sam Langford.

Except Foreman was

A. Much Bigger and Stronger than Sam

B. Much more Powerful

C. Frazier holds quite a few advantages on Sam..and can capitalize Sam's lack of head movement with his fast straight sharp left hands...Sam better keep his gaurd higher here than he does on film, or Frazier might kill him with a left hook. Sam may be stronger, but Frazier moves smoother and is much bigger..he can hold his own on the inside with Sam. I like frazier as the busier of the two to outwork sam down the stretch.

Frazier by close decision

 

In his prime('68-'70) what big puncher did Frazier struggle with? Yes, a green Frazier was dropped twice by Bonavena but he hadn't yet embraced the style that became his trademark against Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena II and Ali. Also keep in mind that he was mentally shot and physically soft in both Foreman fights...

 

Dempsey sure thought Langford would flatten him.

I also pick Langford in this matchup. When someone in this thread said "possibly greatest talent in boxing ever" they might not have been too far off the mark. Monstrous puncher with an incredible skillset.

 

You're like the psycho girlfriend who refuses to go away. Nobody cares what you think or say. You jump up and down for attention, edit your posts 10 times over just to try being clever with your insults. We get it, you like to amuse yourself, you like the attention. The only way you'll get any recognition is if you attack someone. Predictable, and not even funny... just sad. You're a sad old man.