I'm none of the above but I know a good fighter within minutes of watching them and I can recognise a crap one even quicker and believe me I knew within seconds Langford is a bum. Why do you take offense to what I am saying about him anyway? Are you related to him?
So your expertise is that you can spot a good fighter in minutes and a crap one quicker, ok so what was your assessment of Tommy Langford in the few minutes you watched him that led you to the decision that he is not a good fighter ? PS I am not related to Tommy Langford
He is a tall upright orthodox boxer with a half decent jab and absolutely no power, he's pretty easy to hit and has a low punch resistance. I would call him a Far less talented version of Ritchie Woodhall.
Ok I agree with some of that, but don't you think he has had a reasonable career on the british scene so far ? Do you think if you stepped in the ring for a sparring session with him you would still be calling him a bum by the time it finished ?
I t I agree that Langford is reasonably average. Richie himself would openly admit he over achieved. But in my opinion he sells himself short. lack of one punch power yes but otherwise very very good. you need to tone down your ego a bit tho mate because some fighters can improve hugely and really dig deeper than more "talented" kids. absolutely nobody can spot a good bad fighter at first glance with 100%certainty. especially a keyboard nerd like yourself
My ego is a cross between Liam Gallagher and Cristiano Ronaldo and I won't tone it down any time soon.
the word bum is usually used to describe kids who don't put 100%into there lives. Tom is not one of them I can assure you. Have a bit