I agree. I give Charles enormous credit for the first Burley win. As for the second, I will suggest to you that Charley, though live, was surviving that fight. Charles rested in the 7 (?) weeks between the fights, Burley had a really tough night with an other ATG, Holman Williams in between. Burley revcieved the worst beating of his life from Charles, took on Williams, then had a second pop at Charles. His chances were limited. Burley tried to box Charles second time around and got caught out. As i've said, Charles proved himself the better man, but I would dearly love to have that second fight rerun in perfect conditions. But there you go.
Out of all the light heavyweights, I'd pick Bob Foster to beat Langford the most comprehensively. Perhaps I'd kick myself when Bob is groping for his mouthpiece in the tenth, but no, I would be fairly confident. The height difference would be massive - you saw how Foster blitzed Dick Tiger. Granted, Tiger was no Langford and he wasn't in peak condition, but he really didn't get a look in. He might have flustered Foster for a second or two, more a product of his explosiveness that made it look like missed punches were landed... But aside from that brief encounter, he was thoroughly outboxed and then hammered. I think a seven or eight inch height disadvantage* would be too much for Langford to overcome. It's not like he can just take punches willy nilly on his way in. *Or advantage? Who knows. Maybe Foster will find it hard to knock out a short fighter. But I don't think so.
Interesting pick, Foster, two things. First of all, I don't rate the win over Tiger that highly - I think we discussed that before though, the politics, the cancer (possible), Tiger is a good win regardless, but this is the weakest version of Tiger ever. Second, I consider Langford a better composite puncher than Frazier, p4p of course - in actual terms, it's much more interesting, but there is not a million miles in it. Langford has a wonderful chance to just beat Foster down. If Foster fights the perfect fight, Langford still has an excellent puncher's chance. If he doesn't fight the perfect fight, he'll be looking for his mouthpeice, right around 10...
Nah. Langford wouldn't have that weight advantage over Foster, nor Frazier's strength, extra punching power. I wonder how much difference there was in speed? Langford was more precise than Frazier, who really was a bull, especially against a lighter opponent. Foster won't feel as threatened, wouldn't be so hasty on the retreat - he'd jab with authority and retain his composure. A composed Foster is perhaps the most dangerous of all light heavyweights; his punching power was immense. He only didn't carry it up with him because of the aforementioned factors. He was in with bigger opponents. Ernie Terrell, for instance, was taller, stronger and tentacled.
Charles was kayoed by Lloyd Marshall and Walcott. This would seem to indicate he was prone to getting kayoed even by guys who are not tremendous punchers.
On the films I've seen of Langford (only two Lang and Flynn 2) he looks strong and extremely confident in his abilities. I think where Langford would experience trouble here is attempting to close the gap against Charles...meaning that he gets hit coming into Charles. In the Lang film, at one point,after having difficulty getting to Lang...(Langford's reputation proceeded him) Sam deliberately dropped his hands and marched into Lang...Upon seeing this, he started throwing punches....thus opening himself up to Langford's harder blows....I know it is only one film....and Langford competed in perhaps over 300 fights(?) With a tremendous resume....But I think with a more refined style, Ezzard would punish him coming forward...and take a decision. But he would have to fight more carefully than accustomed. Or he could be kayoed...Langford looks very dangerous, wide swings or not!
Foster isn't fannying about in a big 175 fight. Watch him vs Rondon in the unification bout, you will never see a better example of "all business". Given Langford's reputation is much bigger Foster won't be doing no shucking and jiving.
With the Charles Robinson comparison I agree a lot except I think Robinson was a better combination puncher than Charles while Charles was the better inside fighter. I would also say that while Robinson that Charles relied a little more on boxing skills while Robinson relied more on physical gifts although he was an extremely skilled boxer as well.
Charles was an action oriented fighter without a big punch. Because of this, Charles often had his hands full vs mere ranked contenders until his skills and attrition punches won the day for him. Langford was also a warrior, except he had a big punch, and a chin or iron. Picking an action fight is easy. Go with the harder puncher and the more durable fighter. Langford would knock Charles out.
Mendoza, I can't say that I disagree with your opinion at all...Langford's record speaks for itself:good When thinking of this fight, I recalled Charles' hard stand with Marciano (1st fight), when he was past his best...Charles would have to box more to win this fight staying away from Sam....He was capable, but would he do it?
Charles was far more than an action fighter. He was a sleek boxer-puncher with more tricks than Paul Daniels. This fight would never be a punch-out.