Langford v Wlad?

The jury's still out for me on Wladimir, a fighter who holds the paradoxical title of being proven yet suspect. The one man who could have beaten him was not prepared to do what was necessary. If the big man is to march his way into the top ten then we must at least draw the line between legacy and substance, i.e. Jack Dempsey's title reign leaves something to be desired, but he'd cut through Wladimir in the most exposing manner.

You can't bull**** a reaction when you get hit in the ring, and the last time that happened to Wladimir was in the fifth round against Mariusz Wach (one of the few contenders gritty enough to pursue victory). Unfortunately the bell came, but after that right landed the Ukrainian was flustered. He wasn't truly hurt and that is why his reaction has always been a cause for concern.

The man doesn't like getting hit, and that is going to happen against great fighters.

A compromise in a fight against Langford should have the rounds set at 15, plenty of room for error. Could Wladimir carefully arrange a decision? Sure, but there is a lot to be said for the flip-side.

Rarely do fans consider the problems posed by a smaller man. Charlie Goldman taught Marciano to fight smaller than his inches, emphasizing that awkward target of a body. This was a weapon for Sam also. Langford understood range had more to do with the placement of your feet as opposed to the length of your arm, and the footage against Jeannette details how he meandered before lashing out; a true general undermining a top fighter.

Wladimir may only be considered fair by comparison, technically that is. The only thing that would bail him out is his size; if a 175lbs Langford slipped in one of his slugs there'd be trouble.

Substance can and has negated size. Wladimir could certainly do what is necessary to win this one, but he hasn't fought anyone nearly as good as Langford to make him the cosy favourite.

 

Ted knows his stuff.

 

I think people do Wlad's opponents a great disservice in these sorts of discussions.
Sure, it hasn't been a strong era this last 10 years, and Wlad has faced his fair share of dubious challengers, but some of those guys were actually good fighters who gave their best, and the reason they looked so ordinary was Wlad's impecabbly disciplined boxing style.

Larry Holmes always looked "panicked" when he got nailed to me, for what it's worth, just a facial expression thing. I saw Lennox Lewis turn his back and run away from guys a couple of times.
I think people are grasping at straws a bit if they are mentioning Mariusz Wach.

 

Ted is a great poster but in this case he's way off. The jury is still out on Wlad he says?

Wlad won the gold medal at age 20, came back from a bad KO loss, and has won over 60 fights, with 50+ knockouts. He is approaching legendary status in amounts of successful title defenses at heavyweight. No such man is un-proven in the ring.


Which fighter likes to get hit? Very few. And how many in history have better clinching skills than Wlad if he wants to clinch? Very few I think.


The truth is those who say they will attack Wlad quickly change their mind once then taste his power. If you have watch Langford on film, his main weakness is he is wide open to jabs and straight shots. Down more than you think, but seldom out in his day,Sam would take a fearfull pounding. Your asking too much for Langford to have a realistic chance of winning.



Some might say a slightly past his prime Langford had some sucess vs Harry Wills. Wills if you ask me was not that tough, and far easier to hit than Wlad. Langford though slightly past his prime did not blow Wills out. So he's not likley to blow Wlad out ealry either, and that is his best chance.

Wlad is far better than Wills, offensively and defensively speaking, hits harder, and fights smarter.

 

You have raised an interesting issue here.

Harry and Wlad might actually be hovering around the same level on the top 20 all time heavyweight list at the moment. I think it is fair to say that Wills was the more durable of the two, so Langford certainly has the power to take Wlad out. Wlad has the better offensive arsenal, but he did not tend to commit with it in the same way as Wills.

I am certain that Wills would be by far the best opponent Wlad had ever faced.

 

How is Wills more durable than Wlad if he's been knocked out five times to Klitschko's 3?

 

Wlad has been koed three times by nobodies. His chin, durability, willingness to fight on when losing and hurt are all in question. Not having good wiskers, not being tough, wanting to quit when the going gets real tough...any one of these is enough to raise huge questions. All three are still question marks when it comes to Wlad.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

He was last knocked out over 9 years ago. He's on an 18 fight winning streak. He's got up off the floor to win fights, and rebounded from those defeats to establish himself. It makes no sense to question him now.

 

Still wondering how many good giants Langford beat.

Yes, fair point, Wlad needs to prove he can deal with guys a foot shorter than himself too.

 

How about Langford V Klit at say, 200 lbs. At least this way you wouldn't have such a huge weight disparity when pitting an ATG V someone who isn't and never will be, an ATG

 

Wlad is much bigger and better than Wills. We saw Wills average skill set on film here. I am not certain Wills would be the best Wlad fought. Much of wills rep is based on beating past their prime names.