How well would Sam Langford do today?

I remember I even saw one in color from an youtuber who colors old boxing films. Are you sure you are not mistaken ?!

 

I don't find anything wrong with Langford's jab (or Jeannette's jab):

This content is protected

 

You're talking about this reel:

This content is protected

This is not real fight, it's re-enactment of real fight that happened before. It was quite common to re-capture fights back then, sometimes even with actors instead of fighters.

 

What's too crude in Langford's style?

 

Wow, I never knew about these re-enactments. Thanks for the info.

 

No, I don't think he'd try HW either. With the giants around today, that would be a mountain too high to climb.

CW may also be pushing it! I know, his weight in the latter half of his career often is listed between 190 and 200 - but I wonder, how slim/well trained he was then? Today's CWs probably weigh around 210-215 in the ring, so even here he would be giving away a lot of size (height/weight)

Like you, I think his limit likely would be LHW. I think he could probably have made 175 throughout his career - if he had to. Does this mean, that he would be "the man" in this division today? Hard to tell. He would be a very short LH - but also (obviously) a very dangerous puncher!.

I think MW is the division, where he would have the most success today. With day-before weigh-ins, 160 shouldn't be a problem for prime Langford - and his short stature would be less of a problem, than at higher weights. I actually think Langford vs Canelo (at 160 or 168) is a very intriguing fantasy match-up: physically very similar, and both very strong. Would Canelo's iron chin see him through to a points win - or would Langford land something huge, that would be too much for even Canelo to take? It's a fight, I wouldn't bet on!

 

I think that Langford's reach advantage could be a key in this fight, but you have to give Canelo fair chances. The thing is that Sam himself had iron chin, so the only chance for Canelo is to outwork Sam. That's certainly possible scenario, but I think that Sam wouldn't give him much opportunities with his own artilery.

Langford wasn't the most consistent fighter, so he'd definitely lose at least one fight in a long series.

 

The fake knock down at 1:42 is hilarious.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

You know what everyone shown in those fights have in common? They all lost to Harry Greb

 

But, of course, they were cr@p, too, I suppose...

 

They have punching technique for different rules. Of course it looks different. Not looking as clean isn't the same as being worse; same way how Sanchez and Spinks' technique isn't as clean as Arbachakov's - it doesn't make it worse. Langford both got power, and wasn't countered often - which are the two determining factors of good technique.

Yeah, the more squared up stances of today does lend itself to combos better. Although not as well as the older side on stance of the 40s and 50s.

How the **** could you say this? On what grounds can you compare the accuracy of one era of fighters to another; let alone one where there's about 24 hours worth of footage, in total. It makes no sense

What is this etc?

Thats not what I asked. This is what I said: "And why do you think it evolved in the 40s? Are there any top fighters before then that you'd give a good chance of winning a title today?"

 

Yes, I think it evolved gradually and by the 1940s it looked completely different to the 1900s. Boxers had better stances, footwork, combination punching. Just look at the poetry in motion that was Sugar Ray Robinson. Look at how great the trilogy between Zale and Graziano was. Look at the combo in their 3rd fight, right to the body, followed by a beautiful left hook to the jaw, and down goes Graziano. The lumbering wrestling oafs from 1900 had none of that. I don't think I've seen great combo punchers up until Dempsey.
And no, I do not believe any boxer pre 1940 would be champion today.

 

No because Jim Driscoll is one of the best boxers I have seen on film, Pat m doesnt know what hes watching and thinks Driscoll is awful.

 

Jim Driscoll was a great boxer, without question.

 

The thing is punching mechanics of today are not better than Langfords era, I said from the start these people who think modern boxers are better boils it down to punching mechanics and the use of the high guard and dude is confirming it here, even when he is wrong about the punching mechanic argument.