Let's put Liston in with some top 175lb fighters

What was each mans ranking and in what year?

 

Senya, I like your posts and I agree with many of your observations, like about how lethal Liston was and would have been against guys of different eras, but a guy like Joe Grim, who went down soooo many times can't be classed as a guy with a good chin. A fighter who goes down alot, even if he gets up alot has a problem. Floyd Patterson was considered a "chinny" fighter for instance. He went down in his career more times than any other heavyweight champ and his chin is universally criticized as "weak", but an argument can be made along the lines of a Joe Grim, that since he got up from just about all of them (the exception was against Liston, but in both cases, he was just a second off in beating the count even in those fights) his chin must be considered "great". This sort of turns things on it's ear as far as standards of excellence are concerned. Joe Frazier went up and down like a yo-yo against George Foreman, and twice against Bonavena, but since he was not counted out ever, how do you evaluate his chin? Was it "great" or even 'very good" like Joe Grim's because he kept getting up? I think rather, it's a deficit in the career of Smokin' Joe that he visited the canvas so many times, whether he took the full ten count or not is really irellevant. So my problem with Grim is that he was somewhat of an oddity in that he went down so many times, whether he won or lost, and being susceptible to knockdowns alot in one's career cannot be spun into being a good thing. Knockdowns being scored aginst you costs you points and rounds, gives your opponent confidence and momentum and can only be seen as a weakness of the chin, no matter how well one rebounds afterwards.

 

In other words you only have the boxrec non-local commentary about 2nd fight? I was especially amused by "Both men were knocked down repeatedly" from it. Wills wasn't knocked down per se. He was caught by first left hook, remained upright with the help of the ropes, and was knocked out with a second left hook. Although Wills did tire out as the fight progressed, but at no point other than 5th round Langford had the better of the fight, each round was a repeatition of the the previous one, with Langford on the receiving end of left jabs and occasional right hands.

With those stories, I'm afraid they were just myths, sorry. As for hardest hitter claims, these kinds of testimonies are subjective and often contradicting, where the same person says one time one thing, and then another. Facts don't support the claim of Langford being extraordinary hard hitter at heavyweight, he was tricky, with good timing and unorthodox angles, and this resulsted in some devastating KO's, but overall he wasn't that hard of a puncher naturally.

 

There's little trust in such claims. If I recall correctly, Archie Moore claimed he was hit the hardest by Yvone Durelle, and Marciano was hit the hardest by some tomato can, I think?

What's the distance between Indiana (where Indianapolis Star was published) and California (where the fight took place)? Vernon is a city in Los Angeles county. Los Angeles Times is a primary local source, it contains a lot more details than Indianapolis Star.

These accidents have happened to often, don't you think?

No. Bill Tate, Battling Jim Johnson, Dave Mills, Cleve Hawkins, George Kid Cotton, John Lester Johnson, John Klondike Haines. I'm afraid not.

What is apparent in his testimony? He confirms the local report, that he was having it all his own way, Langford was in a bad shape, and Wills desided to go for a KO, being very confident about the way the fight was going.

 

I said the same thing. Another example that can be remembered was Tug Wilson, how he lasted the distance with prime John L. Sullivan by dropping down many times and just trying to survive, not actually boxing.

 

OK lets look at the facts since we are rambling a bit.

Harry Wills was never knocked out in 87 profesional fights except twice by Sam Langford in both cases with a single left hook. This despite fighting all the top fighters of his era in some cases dozens of times.

Yet you will not acept that Langford was a puncher.

Sam Langford was not knocked out in 173 profesional fights again despite fighting all the top men of his era, in some cased dozens of times and or in the same week.

Yet you still dispute his chin and are confident that that Liston would only have to land on him and he would be able to finish him off.

Liston is far less proven against punchers at a world level than either of these men yet you accept without question that he would take their best shots despite your confidence that Langford would wilt uner his power.

In short what you are saying is ridled with contradictions and flies in the face of the facts.

It is frankly dificult to see what it would take to convince you that your initial position was wrong.

 

Well I guess you would know better than the people who were actualy hit by him.

Sure these claims can be subjective but when every oponent says the same thing like with Earnie Shavers you cannot just ignore them.

 

Most of these guys would have been ranked at some point if rankings had been in existence. Tate and Johnson for sure.

 

Audley Harrison has only ever visited the canvas twice. I guess he must have aprety good chin by your logic.

 

Sonny Liston stopped Langford in the first round in Monty Cox's computer tourney.That's good enough for me.

 

Spot on. A fighter's usual line goes something like: "Fighter A, who I knocked out, hit much harder than Fighter B, who sparked me in 30 seconds". :yep

 

However, when a fighter admits a guy that knocked him spark was the best puncher he met then it seems a fair call.

 

That would be the situation for both Flyn and Jeanette here.

 

I really have to agree with you. As much as I really respect Langford and as highly as I rate him in a P4P sense, the early modern era allows for little proof of the kind of supremacy some are trying to endow him with. Everybody's records were a little scrambled due to the realities of early matchmaking, the lack of amateur programs, newspaper decisions, fighters living hand to mouth and various unscrupulous deals. The films are equally unreliable. In fact, Langford looks very sloppy, utterly lacking in defense but fierce and powerful in what I have seen. To say that he punched harder than a guy about whom there is so much more evidence available is a stretch.