Langford v Wlad?

He was 34 when he fought Fulton.

Why don't you tell me what years you think it's acceptable to judge Sam Langford's record on?

Have you got a better one?

 

I'll take that as a no. Thank you for your input.

 

Your comments on the first two pages were very informative and showed marked signs of intelligence and reason. I'd like to see more like that.

 

langford was at his best as a lt heavyweight. period. i think he may have beaten this guy but it would be no shame if he lost. langford would be unbeatable as a lt heavyweight but certainly not so as a heavyweight, nor was he even in his prime. i see klit by decision in a one two and clinch manner, but if langford clocked him for a ko no surprise as he could have done that to almost anyone. i think langford was the best lt heavyweight ever, in the top 2 to 5 p4p, but maybe in the top 10 heavyweight ; no disgrace at all for a beefed up lt heavyweight no matter how supremely talented.

 

Good post....I just question the Spinks-Qawi analogy. As far as Langford goes I bow to you, McGrain and Janitor and am enjoying your back and forth....I just don't remember Qawi being intimidated by Spinks power @ all (perhaps I am wrong and need to revisit this fight), I seem to remember Spinks movement in this fight, never allowing Qawi to get set and using his reach and jab to control the timing and space of the fight

 

Langford aint beatin no Wlad Klitschko.
He's got a better theoretical chance against Lennox Lewis, and he aint winning that one either.

For what it's worth, I think he'd box to a decision win against Valuev.

 

If the reports are to be believed, this seems to be the case, there are also instances of them both seemingly taking it easy. I think its understandable though, two fighters can't be expected to meet just weeks, sometimes even days apart and go all out, trying to kill each other, every single outing when there is money to be earned and food to be put on the table. They obviously beat the tar out of each other in some and left it all in the ring, while in others they were said to have traded "cream puff blows"

Which is why Ovid***ile originally asking for their overall win-loss to judge Langford on is an irrelevant question. Nevermind Langford was in decline while Willis was peaking, its more of a question of which matches were both men not only near their best, reasonably rested, and giving it their all. In those instances, Langford seemed to have the upper hand the best we can tell.

 

Johnson thrashed Langford, I believe.

 

A bridge too far.