Marciano vs Langford

Bull****. He never KO'd a single, credible great fighter. Marciano KO'd 4 of them.

I'm sorry, by the 50's boxing was far and away more advanced than it was in the early part of the century. There is a mass-delusional scenario occurring here regarding the quality of some of these 1895-1920 fighters. On the film we have, Langford impresses, Johnson show flashes and the rest look like rank amateurs. I do not regard much of Langford's contemporaries as anything but "good for their era". They could not cope with Walcott or Charles or Moore, let alone Rex Layne. I know this is sacrilege in the parts but after a few decades around the sport, it's the way I sees it.

 

Seamus,

Watch Langford vs Lang, and you see Sam has plenty of skills. Marciano was considered the crudest champion of all time in his day, and this dates back to the champions of the late 1890's. Yet Marciano despite his crudeness Ko'd what you view as far more skilled boxers of the 1950’s. I think a few fighters from the 1890’s-1920’s could do the same to Charles, Walcott or Layne.

In short, if you got power, stamina, and chin you are always dangerous at heavyweight. Sam had that and some skills too.

 

This is probably one of your best posts. :good It's not like i was on the fence for this matchup, but this saved me a lot of typework. :hey

 

I don't think the sport has evolved like you say. The main difference is in distance of matches and pace set ... Joe Gans, Jack Johnson, Benny Leonard were master boxer/punchers ... there were many , many more ... the joke is of all the more modern fighters Marciano was one of the crudest ... he was all about heart, stamina, power and chin ...

 

Thanx Chris! That means alot. I think I have changed a bit over the preceding months.

We are in total agreement Seamus. Although i would include jack dempsey in the "looks very good" list

We have our own two eyes to see, and its quite clear not only is marciano not crude, but he is deceptivley skilled and has a unique style that is unmatched in history. I would also argue that many great boxing minds of the past did not consider marciano crude. Angelo Dundee for example constantly referred to marciano as being very good defensivley. Charlie Goldman made rocky on film look far from crude. You want crude, take a look at max baer or jim jeffries on film. Even Tom Sharkey looks extremley crude. I have a couple police gazette issues and they refer to jeffries as "crude".

I dont think so. Charles and Walcott do amazing techniques on film that fighters from 1890-1920 had never seen before. they would be way overmatched by charles and walcotts much more developed boxing techniques. High gaurd, triple jabs, combinations, head movement, slick upperbody movement....fighters from 1890-1920 had never seen this stuff before and charles and walcott were the BEST at it. There is a reason james toney and bernard hopkins study jersey joe walcott vs Ezzard charles fights on film, and not james corbett vs peter courtney.

 

Says who??

This is his most impressive knockouts, for sure. but that the same time wills was a greenhorn when these two knockouts especially the first one were taking place. In fact, Wills recorded a win over sam langford, just 10 pro fights into his career...thats embarrasing for a just 30 year old langford. Wills beat langford over 10 times some sources say, while langford just twice. I think many other heavyweight champions in there 30s are capable of beating harry wills twice out of 15 oppertunies if given the chance.

Did you watch Flynn on film vs johnson? please tell me that is not seriousely a world class boxing fighter.

My arguement was Rex Layne is he is a hard puncher. nothing more, nothing less.

Just curious, what does age have to do with punching power? I see you deceptivley shyed away from addressing my points on archie moores success against heavyweights over 200lb. Rex Layne was 34-1(25 kayoes) top rated and 22 years old with a big reputation, you dont think taking punches off of him is impressive?

* I would add Joe Louis to that top 3 list.. At a solid 6'2 213lb any punch from Louis would hurt a 185lb man.


You say the list isnt impressive. In comparison to Ali, perhaps not. but in comparison to the average champion, I would say its impressive. All four fighters I listed (louis, walcott, layne, and moore) produced some devastating one punch knockouts on film for all of us to see. what did mcvea ever show us? what did flynn ever show us??

1960s?? Wasnt 45 year old formr marciano victim Archie Moore rated # 4 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine in 1962? Yet marciano gets murdered in the 1960s? Didnt George Chuvalo manage to stay atop the ring magazine rankings throughout the decade of the 1960s, yet marciano gets murdered in that era?


Im sure if Chuck Wepner, Jose Roman, and Ron Stander can crack the top 10 in the 1970s...then marciano would hardly be murdered.


and the 1980s? Didnt a 5'11 man make a living out of beating the snot out of top contenders?

 

Johnson, langford and Mcvea....sorry but Marciano would punish them all and win by KO........and he would also have KO;d Sam Salt Peter who was 65 lbs overweight and Fat Eddie Chambers who was at least 40-50 lbs lbs over weight........discrace but some guy will say a 250 lb Heavy would beat a 189lb heavy....these Fatties cant fight 3 rds without huffing and puffin...get to the gym and dedicate and NO donuts

 

I pretty sure Rock or Sam(Langford) would have beating these two at the same time.

 

Dude, I was speaking of McVea not Langford in this regard. Get your Sam's correct.

 

What in Sam hill was I talking about? I agree with you, one Sam is a raw as green eggs and ham, the other had good skills.

 

LIke I said, Marciano guys are off the chart ... facts don't matter ...

Marciano was a very good defensive fighter? How many photos of him post fight all busted up do you need to question this one?

Wills beat Langford for the for the first time as a novice ... nonsense. Wills was 25 years old and had been a pro for over five years ..


Arguments are so inconsistent ... so many heavyweight champs could have beaten Wills ... how do you know ? What "FILM" are you basing this on ... definately not his bout with Dempsey since Jack avoided him like the plague.

I asked you to name the best fighters Marciano beat and the biggest punchers he faced. Since you claim him near unbeatable with the greatest of chins I ask who did he prove this against. I'm still waiting for the answer which you have twice avoided.

Ever hear of Ted Lowry? He had Rocky staggered three times in their bout and on the very of a knockout ... Ted was not a ring immortal... sorry , no film but look up the clippings ...

You are right, I forgot to add 37 year old Joe Louis to the list of 38 year old Walcott, 33 year old Ezzard Charles (with over 100 fights of mileage), 40 plus year old Moore .. to Rocky's best opponents list ...great names, all at the end of their careers or past their primes ...Marciano on Louis "I was surprised that he had nothing on his right hand, nothing" . Yes Louis has great KO's on his record, just not the Louis that fought Marciano. Walcott never looked better in his career than the night he teed off on Marciano ... and he was 38 years old ... using your logic of evolution that would be like a 45 year old fighter today, with better diet and training habits, pounding on Rocky ...

How do you know that Walcott and Charles had moves other fighters never saw before .. the statement is purely speculation ... you make these points like you have any sort of proof ...


Talking about crude, read the coverage on Marciano from his day .... I'm not saying Jeffries or Sharkey were not crude but will say that Joe Gans, Phili Jack O'Brien, Jack Blackburn, Jack Johnson, Joe Jeannette, Benny Leonard, Gene Tunney, the Gibbons brothers and many others were highly skilled ... Johnson was universially recognized as a defensive master up until the time of his death in 1946. Blackburn trained Joe Louis (Was he crude?) Jeannette opened and ran a gym in New Jersey where he was known as one of the top, most desired trainers in the counrty. This was stated by Braddock among others that trained there. Ray Arcel up till the time of his death rated Leonard over Duran. I can go on and on ...

Marciano was a warrior with tremendous heart, a great punch, terrific stamina and a very good chin. I rate him as a top ten or so under 200 pounds. However he did not walk on water. He did get tired, did not throw more punches per round than any other figher that ever lived and was hurt on numerous occassions through out his career. In addition to his skills his legacy benefits from exceptional timing , well made decisions and ethnic pride. Giving him all the respect due him I do not see him going the distance in a bout with Langford who I view as a cut above. This is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

 

This content is protected

 

Mostly agree with this.

 

Charley Goldman is on record as saying Marciano was the crudest boxer he ever handled.Sam Silverman ,who promoted a lot of Marciano's fights saidt that Rocky could struggle as much against a third rater as a top liner. This isn't to say that Marciano was not not effective -just some blundering pug, he trained to a purpose for example his ko over Walcott in the second fight was planned and practised for,Rocky knew how to use stategy to expose an opponent to his lethal shots .I have Ring magazines from Rocky's reign castigating him for his technical deficiences ,yet he allways produced the goods.Walcott said he wasnt hard to tag ,but that he was difficult to catch with a really hard shot.
On Langford,while it is true that Johnson was a relatively skinny heavy at 185 when he fought Langford ,it must be remembered that Sam only weighed 156 for that fight.
Bottom line is Langford was a great ,great fighter, maybe the best p4p and I rarely use the word great , but he wasn't necessarily a very great Heavyweight, whereas Marciano would be in most peoples top 10.
I think Marciano would beat him.