Langford vs. Charles at 175

Even if Johnson was trying, I don't rate him anyway - or the white fighters he beat. It was a weak era.

So because Charles was buzzed (and not even badly), that's a criticism of his skill? Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Roy Jones, many great fighters get their chin checked from time to time.

And what do you mean he 'did not show much defence?' Yes, Charles was hit a few times, but then he also blocked or evaded 75% of those punches; watch it again.

The fact that Charles' staved off Satterfield's attack and knocked him spark out in the very next round is just testament to how bad your point is. The win couldn't be any more decisive.

But I think the main point here is that Langford wasn't as reckless as Langford, that is, throwing all-out in the first round (which could trouble anyone). Charles would be able to read a more measured Langford.

I'm still trying to get over the fact you questioned Charles' intelligence because he was rocked by Satterfield.

Of course he was, I know this. But he didn't attack like Satterfield* in the first round, did he?

*Who Charles decapitated anyway!

Yes, Bivins beat him - in 1943. Little to do with it, since Charles improved after the army (I'm annoying myself by repeating it, but it happened) and beat Bivins four times in return.

The Moore fights were close :-(

Of course they were close, he was one of the best light heavyweights ever. Yes, Moore had a dentable jaw but he made up for it with guile and punching technique that I'm positive would at least rival Langford's. Point is, Charles beat him three times and Langford never faced a light heavyweight in the same class.

And 'journeyman' Pat Valentino was a top ten rated heavyweight in the world. Again, Charles sparked him.

I have to pull out examples for you? You can't be that well versed on Charles then, or haven't paid enough attention to his footage.

Now I want you to watch this. I mean really watch it:

[YT]QVJPgXWk7RM[/YT]

It's a very boring fight, I won't deny that, but it's the only 'prime' Charles I have available to show you. But don't get bored, pay attention to the few sections on the outside. Charles' movement, slipping of punches. Like I said, you have to watch it, I'm not providing specific examples.

Ah, but it's alright to excuse Langford for being half blind. Nice. Charles was in the army at the time he fought Marshall and his training was pissing itself up the wall, he didn't have the stamina to last.

But again, he improved by 1946, and quite a lot. Knocked Marshall out, twice.

And yes, it's very easy for you to personally count the loss at the hands of Ray, isn't it? But I bet if there was a loss for Langford that could have been reversed, you'd argue against it and expect me to agree with you.

****ing double standards. It amazes me how specific you can get with your criticisms of Charles when Langford clearly wasn't perfect.

My prime for Charles? Oh yeah, your idea of his prime is probably '43 to '54, making sure to encompass as many realistic losses as possible. No.

Charles was probably in his prime from about 1942 but for various reasons he struggled; training mostly. Exiting the army a dedicated, stronger fighter, he embarked on a run that would represent his peak until about 1949, after which he slowed down and lost his youth.

But it doesn't matter if Langford's prime was longer. Henry Armstrong's peak lasted about sixty fights or three years, but inside that three years he was astonishing.

 

What a stinker of a fight,neither showed much commitment,Charles throws a sloppy left left hook and they fall inside, then repeat.They fought the early rounds as though they were in the 15th ,with their feet wading through treacle,Charles foot work ? It looks ok when he bounces out of range ,when he comes forward, whats special?

Bivins fought as though he didnt want to be there ,pushing his punches and looking to maul at every opportunity.

Harry Gibbs would have stopped it and told them to provide more action.

 

True, Charles looked better in Marciano 1 and the Louis fights but my favorites were Satterfield and Wallace.....Harry Gibbs, thats a name I havn't heard in a while...Classic, old school Referee was he....

 

In that vid he reminds me a lot of Hopkins. The intelligent crowding of his opponents work, tying up before re-establishing the jab, tying up again and therefore showing great ring generalship to set the pace and stop his Bivins working.

Only difference is unlike Hopkins' points stealers Charles seems to be throwing serious leather. His slight head movements to slip Bivins offence and land his own jab to try and set up one-twos is sublime.

Shame there isn't more. But I think Charles beats Langford anyway, so no need to convince me:good

 

Langford v Lang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRRYS9Rh7Bk

 

People seem to forget that when pressed Charles liked to mix it up. He was not Pernell Whitaker. That's when Langford would crush him ...

 

Langford was great but Lang was no Charles either...somebody post Charles-Satterfield and I know Bob was no Langford but

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je9fncDgI-s

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz79Hv5Pdrs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFq5aOYYJM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOotmLWvH6Y

Highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVMLesBGMAM
4:00

 

Bivins looks much better in his fight against Archie Moore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmBHz6vDwuA

Keep in mind that he was washed up in both fights against Moore and Charles, there is film of him in his prime.

 

Charles was at his best at 175lbs.

Ezzard TKO (late rounds).

 

Couple of pics.
:

This content is protected

Langford is on the bottom with Mace

This content is protected