How does Sam Langford beat Ezzard Charles?

This one is for McGrain, you slag. I would like to know what method Langford would apply in a fight with Charles and what physicalities would serve him well. The fight is at light heavyweight.

 

In the way I used it, a slag is a woman who wears cheap perfume, has at least one tooth missing and uses profanity without cease. Sexual intercourse with her is akin to throwing a hotdog down a corridor.

 

What's scenario A?

 

If it goes to the scorecards, Charles wins. He outfoxed Charley Burley as a youngster - twice - as well as Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott. Of course, Langford may win by decision if he goes all Henry Armstrong and lands more punches, but I don't believe he will.

I was never too impressed by Langford. Well, I mean he was great for his time and would be a genuine trouble maker against anyone, but Charles was Charles. I maintain that he was the Ray Robinson of his division - except he traded a bit of speed and agility for strength and inside fighting.

Charles really was magnificent in every department - to think Charley Burley and Archie Moore couldn't even work him out, and to think he outpunched punchers like Bob Satterfield or Elmer Ray.

I understand that Langford was no mere brawler. He was well rounded in his own right and probably had a fair amount of trickery up his own sleeves... But again, Charles was special. This is like putting Mickey Walker in with Ray Robinson or Tony Canzoneri in with Roberto Duran.

Charles had that special something; that something which shines through in the limited footage we have of his peak years. There's an occasional flicker of his former greatness in the fifties, too, but it wasn't the same.

Two things I would like to bring up - Charles' punching power and durability.

The former attribute is very underrated. I really have no idea why the media at the time labelled Charles a light puncher - he was anything but! Rocky Marciano said Charles' punches hurt him the most; they inflicted damage and pain. They didn't just concuss (as seen in the startling Valentino, Reynolds and Satterfield knockouts), they lacerated harshly. Rex Layne learned that. Archie Moore also learned not to get careless against Charles. Charles had a knack of landing vital punches to vital parts (see Jersey Joe tumble in 1949 from that well placed hook) - Langford would be troubled and perhaps disgruntled when he finds out that Charles is much more of a snake than he thought.

Durability? Charles stood up to Marciano! Granted, Walcott flattened him good and proper - but how often do you see punches like that? By that time, Charles was on the slide anyway and was probably a bit more careless and vulnerable than before. He'd already outfoxed Walcott twice. Charles did not have a weak chin at all - he didn't have an average one either, infact I'd say his chin was strong and his survival skills were excellent. He certainly deflected those highly charged bolts that Satterfield threw his way. Marciano tried his absolute hardest to stop Charles and couldn't - and he wasn't just surviving, he was giving nearly as good as he was getting. Elmer Ray, Archie Moore - these are class punchers and they couldn't stop Charles; infact, they couldn't even floor him. I would say to ignore any stoppages and/or knockdowns Charles suffered before 1946, as he was young, skinny and perhaps more fragile mentally before his three year stint in the army...

... However, you may want to take note of his Burley winnings.

 

Cough, ladyboy, cough.

 

You know, for a Bangkok ladybody, you're not a bad analyst.

However - I disagree. But you knew that already.

Langford may very well have beaten Charles had they met... But I pick Charles because from what I've seen, he just looks better, although Langford footage is rare and the footage that is available is grainy at best. Charles' credentials and untouchability at his best is unrivalled in my eyes though; he is the stellar fighter of the 175lbs division; a class above even Archie Moore and Michael Spinks. Imagine that. I can't say I'd favour any light heavyweight over him.

A random observation: Charles was very strong. At 170-175lbs and 6ft in height, he probably had the perfect physique. Lithe, agile and powerful.

 

I wouldn't call someone a crazy mentalist for putting Charles at #1, but they'd have to argue their case. He is about as defendable as Benny Leonard, which is quite, but it would be a tough task.

On the Burley fight - it tells us a lot that Charles was able to beat Burley twice. Not even a handful of fighters bested Burley in rematches; and he tried two different strategies. Archie Moore tried three methods; he came close, but they all failed in the end. That's greatness for you - Charles' intelligence and adaptability is probably overlooked. He faced a wicked variety of fighters, too.