How well would Sam Langford do today?

Langford looks awesome in film.
The problem is that the film looks like ****.

 

Here’s the Niagara Falls, filmed with cameras a decade after Langfords career:

This content is protected

Here’s the Niagara Falls now:

This content is protected

It’s the same exact location. Unchanged. But damn me if it doesn’t look “evolved.”

 

high guard should not have been a thing ,in the first place!

 

I don't care what camera you film Willard on he will always look trash you don't need a better camera for good boxers like Leonard for one example. The movements are all the same, the timing the form ect.

 

I have seen sparring footage that's camera quality that is very good of Langford.

 

If you think Leonard looks good, with modern cameras he would look great. If you think he looks great, with modern cameras he would look fantastic.

If you think Willard looks like trash, with modern cameras he would look not that good.

Please don’t pretend that camera technology doesn’t have a severe impact on the perceptibility of boxing. Just don’t do that my g

 

see the thing that makes you an idiot is some of the things leonard did Langford did , but because Leonard looks more modern Ie moves aroudn a lot you like his style visually and not Langfords , please go watch boxing slowly and instead of assume these fighters were crude understand how what they did worked,this forum would be a better place for it!

 

I already know his idea of fundamentals is hands up (high guard) and footwork(circling left even when its not necessary) ! its viewing boxing from a modern lens .I would be curious to know what modern boxer would take advantage of Langford and Ko him what flaws would Langford present ? what openings does Langford leave in his attack?

 

Yes- better film can change the perception of SOME fighters if the only film we have is slow, grainy and almost impossible to decipher then I imagine it would make a big difference like in Langfords case it is just way too grainy to fully appreciate. Yet I doubt Willard would look any better on good film other then the visual side of things his form, timing yadda yadda yadda is still the same and will arguably make some of us think less of him with good film.
I was cooking- What I meant to say is the sparring film I have seen of Lang was in really good quality! he looked very good indeed.

 

What timing bro?

The frame rates are not even correct. How can you measure timing? You can’t see the muscles flexing or the weight distribution. All you can see are the exaggerated aspects.

Now add on top of that the fact that most SHWs, even the elite ones like Wlad and Lewis, look clumsy by default. Remember “Lummox Lewis?” Remember when the greatest boxing mind of all time, Bert Sugar, said that Wlad looks horrible? Remember how little people cared about the HW division when Wlad was champion? All of that, and you have an absolute recipe for disaster in Jess Willard.

 

And no, footage from the 1910’s doesn’t only effect “some” fighters. If effects every single subject ever filmed with that prehistoric technology.

Just look at the Niagara Falls comparison I posted. The 20’s version looks dreadfully boring, something you would glance at for 1.21 seconds and get bored. Then look at the modern version, gushing with beauty, vibrant colors, silky smooth motion…life! Now imagine that for boxing.

 

I actually live 10 mins or so from the falls!

 

You’re a lucky guy!

Question: Which piece of footage more accurately reflects what you see when you go there in person? The 1920’s footage, or the modern footage?

 

Yeah- I think we should see other people Rez.

 

Stupid logic same river only one is prettier