Could We Realistically Expect Langford To Have Success V Modern Super Heavies?

I do think the oft used argument of present day heavyweights being too big for earlier era boxers to contend with, is fact in this case.

Langford with combination of lower height and weight vs present day behemoths, i just cannot see even Langfords greatness overcoming the mountains that would be put before him.

IF and it a big if, Langford could fight 'small', survive till late in the fight and the fight was over say 20 rounds like it often was in Langfords era, then possibly he might beat some whose gas tank was suspect.

That said about his short stature, i know that if i met him in his time i would not have been so unwise as to be disparaging about his height, that would have spoiled my day some what i think.

 

No. Virtually everyone on this thread is correct.

The question is, could he compete effectively or as well as he did if he fought guys his own size?
Such as at his peak, he could be a rehydrated MW at his peak.

Then I think he could be competitive with anyone, & possibly the GOAT in his real division.

 

You know in recent year we have had some small guys like 5"8 Cyz who did not look terrible fighting Evander but got blown out by Sanders but Bobby didn't have big power as a middleweight or lightheavyweight so he was not in Langfords class.

Dwight Qwawi moved up 5'6 but he was also not known as a puncher in Langfords class.

James Toney was close to 5'8 and was a crafty guy but another guy who left in best days in the lower divisions, still he went to work on Evander's body and stopped him so something that the bigger men 7" 300lb Valuev etc. could not do.

I think Langford was a better puncher than all of them from the Legend stories I have heard so I think he may have some success, hard to say these days with some of these monsters. He split quite a few with the big guy Harry Wills and others but not sure how Harry would do these days if size only was his strength back then.

 

The problem is that he didn't start fighting men who might provide a model for answering this question, until he was well past his prime.

If he had met somebody like Fulton or Tate, say during the period when he was the standout contender, then it might have answered a few questions.

 

NO!

too much HEIGHT, REACH and Weight will always favour Top & Noted BIGMEN over smaller men...

a few inches and 20lbs give or take can be over come, but TOO Much HEIGHT and REACH at the Top will rarely be beaten.

different Division is what the two really are to each other... Hence a need for a S-HW with a HEIGHT & Weight minimum associated too it. 6'4 and 230lb plus for example.

different animals, simple.

 

Of course he could. Langford had the ring experience, timing, defense, and power to be very effective today.

Also, the idea of modern super heavies is ridiculous anyway, since most modern heavyweights today greatly exaggerate their height, but some worse than others.

Fury claims 6'9", but is 6'7".
Joshua is listed as 6'6", but is 6'5".
Wilder claims 6'7", but is 6'6".
Wladimir is listed at 6'6", but is 6'4.5".
Lennox Lewis claims 6'5", but is 6'4".
Parker and Whyte are both listed as being 6'4", but are clearly closer to 6'2".
Ortiz is listed as 6'4", but is 6'2" at most.
Pulev claims 6'4", but is closer to 6'2".

 

(As Janitor said) Langford was past it when he fought Fulton.

 

Wouldn't the exaggeration have always been there, though? Given the PT Barnum-esque nature of the sport's promotion that's been there from day 1, I have a hard time believing there was ever a time when people shot straight on it.

 

He could beat some lower level HWS but not top, more athletic ones.
He'd be awesome at cruiser today.

Lol I'd love to see a Langford-Butterbean fight!

 

Definately my #1 troll on this board today!

░░░░░▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░
░░░░░█░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▀▀▄░░░░
░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░░█░░░
░░░█░░░░░░▄██▀▄▄░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░█░░
░▄▀▒▄▄▄▒░█▀▀▀▀▄▄█░░░██▄▄█░░░░█░
█░▒█▒▄░▀▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░░█░░░▒▒▒▒▒░█
█░▒█░█▀▄▄░░░░░█▀░░░░▀▄░░▄▀▀▀▄▒█
░█░▀▄░█▄░█▀▄▄░▀░▀▀░▄▄▀░░░░█░░█░
░░█░░░▀▄▀█▄▄░█▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▀▀█▀██░█░░
░░░█░░░░██░░▀█▄▄▄█▄▄█▄████░█░░░
░░░░█░░░░▀▀▄░█░░░█░█▀██████░█░░
░░░░░▀▄░░░░░▀▀▄▄▄█▄█▄█▄█▄▀░░█░░
░░░░░░░▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▄▄░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░█░
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░█░

 

Past his best, but he wasn't shot going in to Fulton I in 1917. There was a further, marked decline in Sam after that fight as a direct result of it. The beatings he took from Wills in 1918 were the nails in the coffin.

I still think it's unfair to Fulton he gets no credit for the win today and it's essentially handwaved away. Fulton did better than Jeannette, McVea, Wills, Tate, and Johnson vs that version of Sam (who still had enough to beat Jeannette and McVea)

 

Well that brings them back to almost on par with Langford.

 

Not quite. Sam was only 5'2 in reality along with having no sense of smell and two glass eyes.

 

It would be very difficult its a massive size difference however there have been some weak abc titlists in the past 20 years and can see him beating some of them like a Charles Martin who was straight trash.

 

Langford beat guys just as big.
Bill Tate 6'6"
George Godfrey 6'3"
Jim Cameron 6'2"
Harry Will 6'2"
Bill Lang 6'1"
Bearcat Wright 6'1"