1915-17 A fascinating match up. Does Langford s skill overcome the massive size and weight gap. Or does Willard simply lean,maul and survive? No talk of the colour line please, it's a fantasy fight.
Can Sam hurt Willard early ? Possibly ,if yes then Langford probably stops him. If not there's a chance Willard drags him into the latter rounds and exhaustion , and possibly stops him.
Langford’s pressure and workrate would win him the fight, I think it would look something similar to the Bill Lang film. After realizing the sheer gap in skills between them after a few rounds Sam would pounce.
Jack Johnson was beating Willard 25-0. 45 rounders aren't a thing in real boxing the endurance Willard showed in that fight reaching round 26 means nothing. For most of history fights were 12,15 or 20 rounds. Taking 25 rounds to tire someone out wouldn't matter because the fight would be over. Willards manager kind of won that fight because if the fight was not a 45 rounder Willards career defining moment is an embarassing defeat. Johnson did not have the power to put someone like Willard away and Johnson was mostly a point fighter who took awhile to wear down smaller opponents. The fact Johnson was winning 25-0 and Willard wasn't close to being stopped kind of shows that. Langford doesn't have this trouble. Langford demonstrated the ability to knock out superheavys in a round. The Morris fight was a great win for Willard but generally I think Fulton, Coffey and Morris are better fighters then Willard. And at his very best Tate was probably better as well. Willards probably better then Andre Anderson but hes closer to Andre Anderson then Fulton thats for sure. Willard can probably get to round 2 or 3.
Most likely Willard. Langford was a greatly diminished fighter by 1915 and by 1917 Langford had let himself go to the point that he was regarded as just an opponent that had name value for up coming heavyweights.
It depends if Langford can consistantly touch Willard's chin or not. Langford has many of Dempsey's characteristics. But Langford is 7 inches shorter with 3 inches less reach than Dempsey. Against Willard he's a whole foot shorter.Langford did smash McMahon who beat Langford but my concern is the style issue of the height/reach. I suppose Holyfield and Haye outboxed Valuev while being nearly a foot shorter. Langford also KO'd Tate who was about the same size Probably Langford by brutal KO
Here is the big unknown with the black dynamite crew. We never say them in action, when everything was on the line. They knew that they wee unlikely to get a title shot, so they followed an extreme version of the Derek Chisora model. God only knows how dangerous they might have been, if it had been for all the marbles.
At some point size matters. Willard at 6’6” and 250 pounds had enough height, reach, footwork, clinching, and long punches, plus conditioning and a good enough chin to take what the mere 5’7” Langford had to offer. If Langford thought Fred Fulton was tough to overcome…Willard would have been even tougher challenge.
Im going with Willard. He was simply too big and strong and knew how to use his size. He wasnt a great fighter but he knew how to use what he had. Im assuming we are talking about the best Willard (Johnson) not the old disinterested and inactive Willard who fought Dempsey. Two completely different animals. Im not really sure why History is using Johnson leading against Willard as some sort of corollary for Langford. Johnson was a lot bigger and stronger than Willard and showed he could fight someone of Willards size. Willard struggled with the biggest fighters he fought. Fulton beat him twice and Tate split their series with him. Neither fighter was championship material and even fighters like Wills and Godfrey who were giants in that era were significantly smaller than Willard.
