Langford vs. Charles at 175

Langford took bombs from much harder hitters than Charles . Who are the fighters that cut him up?

Langford was far stronger, hit much, much harder, took a much better shot, had better stamina and was very fast in his own right. It is no knock on Charles who I feel has become slightly overated to say he loses to Sam Langford. Charles would have to run for his life to keep Sam off him. Sam took the bombs of Wills, Smith, McVey, all much bigger hitters and kept coming ... Charles could not keep Rocky off, Langford would crush him.

 

If Ezzard Charles or Archie Moore had fought to the schedule that Sam Langford did there would be deep scars on their resumes to show for it.

Charles might look good compared to Langford taking a casual look at their boxrec profiles but when you total up the time between fights against world class oponents you will see that Charles had it easy by comparison (if that is imagineable).

 

Well he did keep Rocky off, didn't he? For the first fight at least, a fight in which Charles was still 'good' but not the great fighter he was five years earlier. He made the fight competitive and the most painful of Marciano's career, acknowledged by the man himself.

I have no doubt that Langford took harder shots than what he'd receive from Charles, but that's beside the point. Charles would have enough power to disuade Langford, that is, throwing intercepting punches to halt him in his tracks.

Langford was smart in his own right, he was a veteran, but Charles as an intermediate professional was outfoxing one of the smartest fighters of his era, Charley Burley, and that was before he beefed up and grounded himself.

It's easy to say Charles had a mediocre jaw when you look at his pre-army record and discover that Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins beat the crap out of him, but this was a less prepared, less sturdy Charles and they were fellow all-time greats. If Charles only had an average jaw then I'm sure Elmer Ray or Archie Moore would have checked it later on. But of course, he improved, mostly physically.

He certainly got his revenge on Marshall and Bivins; they never beat him again in a combined six fights.

Yep, Jersey Joe Walcott knocked out Charles, but have you ever seen a sweeter punch? If it was any consolation, Charles had beaten Walcott twice already and took a supposedly harder hitting Marciano fifteen exhausting rounds.

At a realistic worst, Charles is losing to Langford by hard fought decision just like he did against Marciano - but we know there was a better version of Charles.

Like the one who schooled Archie Moore and decked him in their first fight. Moore came back again with a different approach and fared better, but was still beaten by decision. Lastly, with a different gameplan, Moore was able to land his best shots on Charles and had him reeling before Charles shattered Moore's hopes with what might have been a career ending punch for a lesser opponent.

Langford had more strength, punching power and durability, I won't argue against that. But I believe Charles was, perhaps against consensus, solid in each of those areas himself, but had a more versatile skill set than Langford and a natural knack for winning.

As I said before, I don't know how but Langford is seen as invincible by some on this forum, maybe because he was mistreated as a fighter. And although there were fights he should have won but were recorded otherwise, there were also fights which could or should have went to his opponent. And many times he did just lose fair and square.

 

As a whole that is true. But didn't Charles face the greater challenges? I don't believe Langford fought a light heavyweight quite as good as Moore, and neither did he fight heavyweights as good as Walcott and Marciano.

And to Charles' credit, there were portions of his career scattered throughout where he would fight several good fighters in a row, one every three weeks - or something like that.

 

Great match-up, but Charles too big and fast.

 

great post:good if we're looking at prime then i have to agree. charles is one of the greatest boxers of all time, he had it all. langford was phenomenal: a tremendous hitter, one of the best predators and closers of all time with brilliant skills when he needed them. this is incredibly tough but at that weight, i lean towards charles. for me, he's the runaway best 175 pounder of all time who had the jab, toughness and all around skill set to keep sam at a comfortable enough distance. once inside, langford physical strength and power would tell a different story but i see ezzard dictating the pace and distance of the fight

 

Sam Langford would beat Ezzard Charles more times than not at this weight...in my opinion.

 

nice ending mcgrain and great analysis

my only small question/ojbection is the charles that gets drawn into a shoot out sounds more like the latter year, heavyweight career charles. i honestly see him at 175 having enough in the tank the fight all 15 rounds and dictate the pace enough the make it his battle from the outside. you're bang on that charles does not have the power to get langford's respect BUT i see his skills, movement and perfect balance allowing him to avoid sam. langford is no crude brawler but i think charles outmoves him and wins enough rounds to eek out a close decision

 

This is simple, Charles was a better boxer, had a better defence, better footwork, utilised a much better jab, better technical boxer, straighter/sharper puncher, faster.

Langfords getting outboxed or KO'd, if you know boxing you know that, if you dont you may think otherwise

 

Manassa, excellent post. I simply disagree.

I don't think Langford can be over rated. His level of competition is second to none. It would be greater if half the boxing world did not duck him. The illusion that he was simply a strong, tough puncher is way off. His defense was excellent. He was very fast. Extremely tricky.

I'm not saying Charles would not be a worthy opponent. I just think he would be out gunned and over powered.

Every fighter he ever fought, from Johnson to Wills to McVey to Jeannette to Smith to Flynn said they had never seen anyone like him. He was a living legend for a reason.

 

I sincerely believe that Charles had the power to not just keep Langford honest, but hurt him if he made a false move. Charles knocked out plenty of fighters at light heavyweight and even heavyweight with just one or two punches. He was seen as a light hitting heavyweight champion (his punches did have less of an effect there) but that was only compared to Joe Louis.

If Foster's a 10/10, Charles was a good 8/10 who put his shots together well when needed.

 

great post. it's true: everyone but everyone ranked langford incredibly highly. he's on most ATG lists for a reason.

still charles is the top 175 pounder on most lists for a reason: he was UNBELIEVABLE at that weight and i don't see sam being as effective against him as he was against middles or even heavies

 

Cheers. I think I may just be more a fan of the taller, lithe boxer-punchers like Charles, Robinson, Williams and Louis (in general). They tend to use more of a variety game, although every now and then there comes a specialist fighter who might thwart them.

 

Sam Langford was a beast and beat some great fighters but I think Charles had the better track record vs Louis, Moore,Walcott,Satterfield,...I think the controlled aggresion and ring smarts would find Charles victorious over 15 rds in a close and competitive match