Sam Langford Vs Big George Foreman

I make them all the time.I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they deliberately try and get up my nose , then I give them both barrels.

 

I'm confused here, so he didn't do it because of this that and the other, but it's a well documented tactic of his? Odd

 

You never got up my nose but it's clear I got up yours you are over sensitive and can't take a joke or can't tell when it is a joke

 

I honestly can't see this any other way, I tried, and I just can't

 

The only extant film of Langford in actual fights shows three men whose styles could not be more disparate.
Jeanette,Flynn ,and Lang ,so were the styles of these three boxers such that it didn't enable Langford to exhibit his clever movement as the poster claims? It's a bulsh*t answer from a poster who was stumped and unable to provide an example to back up his claims when one was requested. Just as he couldn't give examples of books or newspaper accounts that specifically mention Langford's skillful movement.

Moral of the story is,don't make claims you can't back up because there is always going to be somebody who will request a primary source from you,and,if you cant provide one you are going to look like a prize prat!

 

Langford seems to have acted as a stalker against fighters of comparable size, but he seems to have circled larger fighters, a bit like Dempsey in the Willard fight.

 

No matter what he did in that era doesn't mean it would work against far more skilled fighters. Fighting with 5 ounce gloves throwing wild shows with no jab or skilled doesn't equate well against any modern fighter.

It is like saying because a fighter plane back in the 1930s was great for its time so it could still be dominant today.

Sam Langford wouldn't even be consider a club fighter today with that style. Foreman, Tyson, Lewis, Either Klistchko, Wilder, Joshua, Tua, or any other half way decent modern sized heavyweight would stop him in 1 round.

You people who live in this fantasy world where you love to bring up fighters from the late 1800's to early 1900's and try to have fantasy matches with modern fighters need to stop. It only makes you look foolish.

 

Skillful boxing is something you rarely see in hwt boxing today. Wilder, Joshua are not examples of well skilled fighters. In terms of fighting SKILL Langford outshines most on your list. It's actually incomparable.

 

Fantastic story you have there then you realize the least skilled boxer today is 100 trillion times more skilled than Langford or any fighter of that era.

What is incomparable if your level of intelligence. I would say it is animal like but animals are clearly smarter than you.

A era where people didn't even though basic jabs or combinations. Every fighter kept their hands by their hips, but hey in your peanut sized brain you want to believe that made them skilled because you hear some 90 year old so called boxing expert say so then good for you.

This content is protected

Amazing skills of Sam just walking around and grabbing. Trying to get close and throw wild uppercuts. Amazing how people in boxing for some reason don't try to walk to their opponents with their hands by their side anymore. I guess lack of skill.

This content is protected

Another video of Sam just walking forward throwing wild punches.

You know what else? He punched way harder than Tyson even though there is no way to prove this. Tyson faced modern sized heavyweights and destroyed them with bigger gloves and Sam fought in a era where 99 percent of the people had no skill at all and they wore smaller gloves.

Put his lack of skill, his 180 pound weight together and surely he would knock out Foreman. Or weight Foreman would get tired after 2 rounds because Foreman had horrible stamina because he got tired in 1 fight in his whole prime and that was against Ali. You know what is like saying since Henry Cooper knocked Ali down with one punch then everybody could.

You people also didn't know this but fighters back in the day were God. Wait if God is real they are better. You know because they boxed back in the day. So logic that applies to everybody else doesn't apply to them. You know Pernell Whitaker could beat Wladimir Klitscko because he is more skilled even though that isn't how boxing works. You know Julian Jackson would knock out Lennox Lewis since Hasim Rahman did and Julian Jackson is a pound for pound harder puncher.

You people are so clueless that I almost feel sorry for you...but I don't.

 

Yeh, too big, too powerful, too durable.

 

Yeah, after repeated attempts you got up mine and I gave you what you needed .Where you go from here is up to you .

 

That is evident from the footage we have to view unfortunately some can't read fights or comprehend what they are watching ,I'm specifically referring to ODIOUS.And no ,that is not a miss- spelling!

 

Keeping hands low does not mean a fighter is easier to hit. In those days great fighters such as Langford were masters of the fine points of the game, feinting, blocking, parrying, slipping, ducking, body positioning, side stepping and stance to keep away from punches. All time boxers such as Tunney, Loughran and Ali and many many others fought with hands low and all are considered very hard to hit with a solid blow. Today most fighters are taught "range fighting" which is much less complex and easier to master. Most trainers today stink so all they can provide are simple concepts.

 

This content is protected

 

Tunney,Loughran ,and Ali were excellent boxers with fast feet, that fought on the retreat more times than not,that was not Langford.