Sam Langford v Ezzard Charles

Charles via decision he is much more fluid and smooth and his defence looks far better on film. Charles UD 10-5.

 

Langford is in my Tier 1 equalling 1 till 4 on a list while Charles is on my Tier 2 equalling a ranking between 5 and 7. But sometimes I put Charles into my Tier1, so they are quite close I think.

 

Charles wins better boxer, technically better, faster, better combinations/fluidity, movement and defense. Workrate/stamina/power are close calls, Langford may have had the better.

So Charles is going to outbox Langford but Sam would have his moments.

Given are both approx the same size in their prime Charles is P4P better. Legacy wise is a close call, Charles competed in a better era against better opponents so I like him legacy wise over Langford too.

 

Agreed again.

 

Charles would win a decision over Langford. p4p I have Langford at 5 and Charles about 9 or 10.

 

:thumbsup

 

I feel Langford, in order to win would need to stop Charles, which would be a possibility. But (IMO) Charles with movement and combinations wins by solid decision. Two great, great fighters.

 

What a fight this could be!.
I like Langford by tight decision.

 

Charles ices him IMO, better technique, I think he’s more evolved in terms of ability, Charles looks modern, he doesn’t look unevolved in terms of ability whatsoever.
Langford would hold his opponents with one hand and pull back the uppercut with the other hand all the way behind his own waist to load up and throw it, and it would still land, I seen that against Fireman Jim Flynn, his technique in general just looked a bit more eratic than a Charles.

 

Charles by UD in a fight with some rough spots for both men. Charles technically superior and just as tough inside.

 

Hi Buddy.
Excellent overview on this fight in particular, and also the development and evolving of the sweet science from the turn of the last century 1900/1915 or thereabouts, up to the 20s onwards, we have all seen the clips of such " greats " as Corbett, Ketchell, Fitz, etc, and the footage is not flattering by any stretch, lots of leaning back on one foot ( Johnson. Fitz ) rushing in recklessly ( Ketchell ) in the main its seems like you could take a man off the street around that time, and he would look no different than the above, sort off , there are exceptions of course, so the fighters of that time period, to me, look very awkward, not a lot of coordination, I have always felt that you pit a contender or mediocre champ, of any year from the 40s onwards, say a Briscoe or Chuvalo, Giardello , or so, they would triumph over the Legends of that period, maybe I am being too hard on these champs, who knows, anyway neat post Devon, of which I am in full agreement.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.

 

I completely agree, I also don’t think you’re being too hard on them, the Briscoes etc had guys who they could watch and study, guys like Corbett, Fitzsimmons etc didn’t have anyone to study, they had to create the foundation of boxing themselves, so they’re still legends in their own right, Briscoe being able to beat guys from those times, isn’t a discredit to them.
The reason this has to be mentioned is because many people would pick Corbett to beat him because he’s more important to the evolution of boxing and setting the foundation and they see it as disrespectful to pick Briscoe, but it’s not, it’s just realistic, it’s no discredit to Corbett, he had no one to learn from and it shows he was intelligent to be able to create the foundation from nothing.
I’ve often used the analogy of, science students of today may know more about science than Newton, but Newton was still more intelligent and more important historically because he set the foundation.

 

When matching up two fighters like this I can't see picking either man winning being a wrong answer.