How well would Sam Langford do today?

I was thinking of the average height of guys who fight at MW, which is around 5.7, 5.8.
Now of course we might have some taller slim guys or some shorter more bulked guys.
Anyway, my point was Langford is too small to stand a chance against top boxers in bigger weight classes

 

Why do you keep using Fury, AJ etc as an example? Other than one poster, nobody used them other than you.

Which means that Langford wouldn't be short for a MW, which you implied before. Not to mention that Langford was massive 5'7.5 fighter with long reach and barrel chest. He's bigger than his height indicates.

What do you mean by "bigger weight classes"? I think that Langford could figth comfortably at LHW and he'd beat a number of top CWs as well. HWs might be too big for him at this point, but it's not like he never faced giants in his day.

 

Langford beat:

6'2, 210 lbs with 84" reach Harry Wills
6'2.5, 220 lbs with 79'.5 reach George Godfrey
6'6.5, 230 lbs with 81" reach Bill Tate
6'1, 200 lbs Bearcat Wright
5'10.5, 215 lbs with 75" reach Sam McVea
6'1.5, 203 lbs with 76" reach Bill Lang
5'10, 195 lbs with 74" reach Joe Jeannette

Thinking that LHWs would be too big for him is funny.

 

he doesnt at all , that rear hand was under the heart to protect against solar plexus shots .

I am not jumping through hoops for a dumbass like you. The video is fine if you come in with an unbias open mind. The techniques I wanted to show where displayed in that video. I could have gotten more wonky and you would have been more confused than you already are.

 

I'd LOVE to see Langford in the ring with Fury, rip shots to his flabby body, then KO him after a flurry of head shots.
I'm not saying that's what I'd predict would happen, I'd just love to see it happen.

 

The video with 6 likes and 5 dislikes is 'fine.' Yeah right.
There are lots of YouTube videos out there that do proper technical analysis on fighters and fights, with a fair degree of professionalism.
Rather aspire to that, than thinking what you put out is 'fine.'
It's also funny how you sprout on about an 'unbias (sic) open mind' yet every post your put out is praising old-time fighters to the skies, yet have nothing good to say, in fact make up rubbish, about modern fighters.
I think you think you're a legend in your own mind.
Listen, what you say is nothing new, original or interesting. This forum has heard it all before, only most the time it's from posters with a valid viewpoint and a genuinely unbiased opinion.
Your 15 seconds of fame has been used up.
Run along now.

 

Likes and dislikes are more about the author of the video and not the content dummy . Also their analysis is based on how nice they editing skills are I analyze boxing first I am not a video producer. There is nothing made up about what I say about modern fighters you just dont like what i have to say . Every thing I post can be found in the films . You do not have any thing other than dumb vague ass comments about hands down or footwork . You never bothered to understand how boxers back then got away with that stuff , you never asked why . You assume the sport evolved and have nothing to prove that other than conjecture. lets see your analysis post a video and break down what happens start a thread and do it or shut up , ya dunce.

 

I use them as examples cause the poster Samtoeg said Langford would beat anyone, be champ in any division he wants and retire undefeated, thus he also means he'd beat them. Which is ludicrous.

By bigger weight classes I mean HW, LHW, CW. And I don't think he can be champ in any of these divisions.
Let me put it this way: I fancy Canelo to beat the crap out of him, let alone bigger guys.

 

He was a phenomenon of a human physically and had an incredible amount of talent.. That translates to any era

 

All those guys have primitive skills, back then they did more wrestling than actual boxing

 

wheat bomber you are so ****ing stupid how did Sam langford beat those guys when he himself was the naturally shorter reach smaller guy , if their skills were equal than the bigger guys should have won every time right ?

 

I never said their skills were equal, I just said they were primitive. Perhaps he was more skilled than those guys, but he is still primitive compared to modern counterparts.
And you don't have to insult someone who doesn't agree with you.
And also, show me your video, I never got to see it.

 

harry wills had a longer reach than Deontay wilder and Anthony Joshua mind you , had 1 less in reach advantage than Fury and was more skilled than those 3 guys and past prime Langford knocked him out twice,its not a stretch to say Langford can knock out those 3 heavies . Bill Tates reach was 1 inch off of Joshuas and 2 off Wilder and 4 inches from Fury and Tate was knocked out by Langford as well.

 

So there is skill levels of boxers back then so mr expert wheat bomber . what made Langford more skilled than those guys? jesus ****ing christ yall say boxers back then were unskilled and you cant even discern the differences of skill between fighters amongst each other from that era.Again as I always say just say you cant analyze the skillsets of that era and just like boxing that looks palatable to your eyes .

 

So you decided to focus on only one opinion, that isnt shared by anyone else here... cool, but dont except to be treated seriously then.

Langford would clean out current LHW division. He wasn't too small for them.

Based on what exactly? Nobody below HW beat the crap out of Langford. Well, nobody did that to prime Langford at all. Canelo isn't anything Langford wouldn't be able to overcome. If you think that Canelo's high guard and chin is enough to overcome the best P4P puncher ever, then feel free to do so, but don't be surprised that you're the only one here thinking so.

Seriously, Langford fought and beat more skilled fighters than Canelo.