Langford is right up there with Greb for me but I this could be a bad matchup for him. I think about the Fulton fight. Langford was past his prime here but he was arguably past his prime for all or most of his heavyweight fights. In terms of dimensions Fulton was like a more rawboned version of Wlad. He may not have even had the skill of Wlad. You combine that size difference with Wlad's technique and it could be a bad match for Sam. On the other hand Langford was a dynamite puncher and Wlad has a weak chin (so did Fulton). Langford had gone 20 rounds several times just fine whereas Wlad has bad stamina. Id favor Wlad in this match but Sam would have a couple of small hopes to hang onto.
Langford got generally better, across the board. This would naturally make him better against good jabs and good self discipline. Nevertheless we can see left hands troubling him throughout his career. Nevertheless, Smith takes credit for the win and the win was achieved in part with the length and the left. It's a part of a wider pattern. If Smith had led with the right, attacked the body or counter-punched I think he would have lost. Employing the left was the key. This is because Langford - naturally, given his dimensions - had a vulnerability to it. I agree, but IMO it is far, far too one-sided that equation. Wills was inexperienced when he got into the ring with Sam. Which is terminal. Whilst Sam was slowing down, Wills was also improving, improving his jab, and learning about the importance of that punch. I completely disagree with this. I think Fitz's one-punch KO's were the more shocking.
Throughout. But you can see already how the original argument is degrading. Try to consider why a fighter loses to a style that is troubling to him. It is not always because of the style alone. Rather some other factor - age, inexperience, condition, schedule - helps to reveal that weakness. You've already tried to explain away a loss of this type via conditioning. I would not dispute that. But what this inferior fighter of this type reveals is a clue about Langford's chances with Wlad. At the very least the fact that it was a problem pre- and post- prime reveals that it solution was relative, relative to physical ability and its execution rather than a shift in style. So the point still holds. It does if it bridges a gap. And remember that this is no more than the details that satisfied me as to the nature of its meaning. If you require more, that's fine, but keep in mind that you yourself revealed another fight where a Langford loss was caused in large part by a superb (for the era) jab. The answer doesn't matter as far as the question at hand. Langford's sub-par condition in conjunction with a certain vulnerability has already taught us a lesson through close reading. Sure.
What do you think of Langfords sucess at avoiding the jam in his series with Sam McVea? McVea was 5' 11'', but he alegedly had an ape index of 78''.
Wlad KOs him through the defense with the first punch. On a more serious note, the matchup is ridiculous. Wlad would be heavily criticized if he were to fight someone like Langford.
I would favor Mickey Walker, James Toney, and Dwight Qawi over Sam Langford. But I'd give him more of a chance agasint them than against Wlad. At least they're the same size.
Wlad would be exceedingly slow vs Sam...he would see every punch coming. Sam is the far greater fighter...not even in the same universe.
Langford is one of few fighters from that time period that look good via silent film quality media. There is a great video on YouTube that slows down the action so you can see his skills in slow motion...very impressive.
I love Mickey Walker. Another of my favorites. But I think Langford would knock him into next year. I honestly believe that and Im not underrating Walker. He could do it all. He could punch, he could box, he was athletic, had great timing, reflexes, and instincts. He was durable, had a huge heart, and was tenacious. The problem is he liked to fight and and could get hit. Most guys that would be just fine for Walker. Langford was special though. He put guys a lot bigger than Walker to SLEEP. I think Walker would have to go at Langford and in so doing he'd get hit and he'd get stopped. I love Walker. There arent a lot of guys who could beat him much less knock him out. Langford would though. Just a bad matchup for the Toy Bulldog. Toney would lose a decision. Qawi might have had the best chance because he had a combination of durability and volume punching. But his fight with Spinks always makes me wonder. He seemed intimidated by Spinks' power. If Spinks can do that to Qawi then Langford could too. It would be a hell of a fight though.
Having just watched all of the available footage on Langford, I must disagree. The only way I can square his and Johnson's records is that their opponents were even worse. He's obviously a very strong puncher and can take a punch, but beyond that I don't see a lot in him.