You are so stupid kid... the weight means ****!!! DEMPSEY HAD MUCH LARGER BIGGER FRAME AND MARCIANO WAS A LITTLE BIGGER TOO.FOREMAN WEIGHED 217 POUNDS IN THE FIRST FRAZIER FIGHT,TYSON WEIGHED 221 FOR THE BERBICK FIGHT.WHO WAS BIGGER? Uh idiot?
Tyson was bigger. There frame doesn't mean ****. The size of someone's frame is only the skeletal system. Who was bigger Hearns at 147 or Hagler at 160? Hagler of course. Size=weight. If someone has a size advantage that means they have a weight advantage unless the weight is the same then it is height. Dempsey weighed 180 and Langford weighed 200. Marciano weighed 187. Get over it. Langford had more muscle on his frame. Dempsey had more bodyweight of natural tissue such as internal organs and bones. More of Langford's size was muscle. Same goes for Marciano that it did Dempsey. Tyson had more muscle on his 221 lb frame than Foreman did on his 217 lb frame. I don't know how that takes away from the fighter though. Oh yeah I see why you're so ****ed, size means everything to you and skill plays no part. :hi:
Everyone's internal organs weigh around the same. The exceptions are people with medical conditions. That which Dempsey had not for if he did then 1 shot to the body would have put him down.
For the record, there were a few common opponents between Langford and Dempsey, and at least two of them named Langford as the harder hitter.
Marciano was a glorified attrition puncher, a great one, but still usually needed to soften up his opponents before dispatching them. If we are to believe Dempsey's record, he took care of guys quickly, got them hurt early and done early. This seems indicative of a great shaft and great girth.
Dempsey's punches seem extremely turgid on film. Only in relative sense are Marciano's flaccid. I don't have enough footage of Langford to estimate but I think there is great endowment to his prowess.