And I made this match up because i'm curious about this stylistic clash, not for any other, more juvinile reason. 15 rounds, who and why, i'm interested in how Tiger might fair against someone who can hit this hard. Langford won't be looking for tiger.
I'm confident that Tiger would be able to deal with Langford's power. Rubin Carter and Florentino Fernandez were dynamite hitters but couldn't dent him. Tiger also had no problems dealing with the roughness of men like Gene Fullmer or Henry Hank. Though Langford was likely a better puncher (speed, accuracy) than these fighters, I don't think there would be a knockout either way. Bob Foster made short work of Tiger, but Foster was Foster. A harder hitter than Langford in my opinion - just with a different style (Foster's physique and attributes meant he had to back off against heavier, more formidable men, and couldn't throw as much into his punches as when he was facing watered-down heavyweights; light heavyweights). Langford, as a short man, was often forced to press the action, and could therefore generate all the power he needed as he marched forward. I had to make this point evident before someone came along and said 'Foster doesn't have the same heavyweight knockout credentials as Langford.'
Good post Manassa. I think Langford was a special puncher who might put the theory to the test but I lean towards your way of thinking. What makes it interesting is, Tiger normally dominates guys who fight with him and this may not be the case here. You can't say it would come down to stamina, or chin or strength which makes it read like something of a stalemate. But I think I'll favour Langford for his boxing maybe to eak out a decision. I would also say that Tiger was just about done and in a freakish state of mind when he took on Foster - not that he wasn't a great fighter, just that he got Dick at exactly the right time.
