Langford would beat every incumbant ring champ from 147 to 175

Primarily because he is far more proven against all time greats than Calzaghe. Langford has been beating pound for pound greats from his 18th birthday at lightweight all the way up to heavyweight. He is about as proven as you can get.

Lets not try to make Joe run before he can walk here. What makes you think that he is better than Kid Norfolk say or a whole host of other Langford victims?

It is also only fair to ask how his hands will hold up with 4-5oz gloves.

 

I don't think that the film dose justice to the subtle aspects of Langfords defence like head movment.

Contemporary acounts sugest that he was verry adept with these.

 

For whatever reasons Langford also lost to a load of fighters it is safe to assume Joe Calzaghe would muller -fullstop- But since Calzaghe hasn't beat or lost to anyone of note, we simply cannot make a pick, except one based on common sense (having examined his record, taken into account the year and having seen the limited footage), where we fairly confidently pick Calzaghe -fullstop-

Is the only justification of you view about Calzaghe's hands holding up -questionmark- No head movement will save you from Calzaghe's slaps -fullstop-

 

a) or b) -questionmark-

Langford was able to win despite being horribly out-weighed

a) Langford was a great boxer but his large opposition were, well kind of poorish

or

b) Langford was Calzaghe-like and beat up huge fighters, skilled by todays standards who would dominate today -questionmark-


Which do you think allowed these size mismatches to actually happen -questionmark-

 

I would agree 100% on that -fullstop-

 

It's absolutely insane to suggest a fighter whose style we have little knowledge of, could beat a whole load of top class fighters. Maybe you could say he'd beat Mayweather, but to go all out and suggest he'd beat Wlad or any above average heavyweight is ridiculous.

And whilst looking at his resume of fighters he beat, be fair and look at the losses on his record. He lost to fighters who had losing records and were probably awful fighters. You can't just say "He beat all these ATG's", whilst ignoring he lost to men who wouldn't break the top 20 in their division today. Like Larry Temple.

 

I don't think so. What footage is there? It's like Fitz. you get a very basic look at what he did, but other than that, because of the erratic speed and very poor quality of the time, you just cannot see true details. His stance and other basic things, maybe, but there is no way you can examine his work.

Why? Fighting today he wouldn't be considered the more talented boxer against fighters like Chagaev. If it was in his rules, maybe, but I feel the huge size disadvantage would give him too large of a handicap. I doubt he'd stand a chance against Wlad under his won rules, never mind with a complete different ref style, large gloves and other stuff like that. He would have every disadvantage against Wlad or another heavyweight.

If that's the case, the chances are it was against local toughmen. If the opponent was of note, the fight would have been recorded by someone.

 

Calzaghe will lose to Kessler, Kessler also hammers Langford IMO -fullstop-