You don't understand. My point wasn't about p4p, but that the normal sized version of Peter beats Langford. Truth be told, I also think that Peter will even win if we scale him down a bit.
Size wise, perhaps. Skill wise, don't think so. I've said this about many old timers: great for their era, but would get beaten handily by latter champs.
I don't either, I just see that Langford had far better defense, ability to set up punches and footwork. Peter has no advantage on Langford other than sheer size, but Langford beat Peter-sized fighters in his career who were good contenders anyway. Seriously, Langford had wins over ATG fighters when he was old, half-blind and overweighed. How did he accomplish that without more skills than Sam Peter?
Cause those ATGs are described as such due to what they achieved in their own era, they can't hold a candle to more modern ATGs.
No, that's not the case. The best 1910s and 1920s fighters below HW division could compete in any era. By the way, I can't find more modern looking HW than George Godfrey - huge, massive, powerful puncher, limited offensive arsenal and inconsistent conditioning. I don't think Peter is any better than Godfrey and Langford knocked him out early.
No they couldn't, they'd get embarrassed bigtime. Peter is definitely better than Godfrey. They say a picture says 1000 words, I believe this highlights it better than anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Godfrey_(boxer,_born_1897)#/media/File:George_Godfrey_LOC.jpg
Please try to explain why you think these guys couldn't compete now (I'd recomend putting it to .75 speed) This content is protected
I do not know if I consider this film or Gibbons vs Mcfarland , the most technical boxing match on youtube!!!!