Sam Langford Vs Big George Foreman

Not the point. Classic boxing skill did not require a hands held high stance. The skills of feinting, parrying, slipping, blocking, proper stance, footwork are completely applicable whether a fighters basic style was based upon aggression (Langford, Dempsey) or movement (Ali, Loughran).

 

You gave me nothing except the chance to laugh at your pathetic rubbish you even admit in the post below this one Langford had good movement but earlier you claimed he didn't that's what I love about you your always contradicting yourself now you have egg on your face well done son

 

Time for me to destroy this idiot

Langford is one of the most skilful boxers EVER the only guy who is anywhere comparable today is lomachenko who has a long way to go

Please post a video PROVING a boxer from today is 100 trillion times more skilful then Langford I can't wait to see it

Every time you post you look even stupider I'm impressed really I don't know how your doing it fake-u-lese but you are doing it and i'm going to give you a clap for it

You claim in this era people didn't throw basic jabs or combinations funny then how Langford is noted for being one of the best ever in both those fields

Now please don't leave the forum out of shame fake-u-lese because destroying your silly stupid little posts is really fun

 

I didn't say classic boxing required a high guard,I pointed out that there is no similarity between Langford's style and that of the three you mentioned.Langford wasn't particularly hard to hit, he was known to be vulnerable to a good jabber.Dempsey was constant motion , bobbing and weaving under his opponents guard ,his chin tucked into his shoulder. Langford walked in reasonably upright, hands at waist height.Why do you feel it necessary to lecture me about the basics of boxing, how many fights have you had?

 

It must be tough being asked a half a dozen questions about a boxer you have told the guy asking to study up on and particularly humiliating when you don't have the first clue as to what the answers are! Now run along silly bollocks you've had your lesson for the week!

 

I could have easily answered every question but winding up an over sensitive idiot was much more fun

 

Langford was not known for his jab , he was essentially a hooker.Produce one verified report that singles out his jabbing ability. He was outjabbed by several opponents and not all of them of any class either.

 

You mugged yourself end of,now don't waste my time ,some of the posters here actually have something to contribute.

 

Really contradicts the reports I've read of a trip hammer jab

You just see a good jab as having to be a long rangy one when in reality a short inside jab can be just as good

And Langford could jab in a variety of ways effectively

 

The only mug that mugged them self was you

 

The point is that classic boxing skills are the same whether you dance and box, swarm or sidestep in attack mode. Classic boxing skills no matter the style require holding ones hands up high. Langford is constantly, feinting, slipping, parrying punches as he sets up his opponents for his punches.

 

I've no problem with that analysis, my problem is with those ,[one actually ,]who say he was known for his foot work, but cant produce any examples of it in three fights or any references to it in news reports.

 

Anyone who thinks old time boxers couldn't jab or put combinations together are still at square one.

If you want to see footage of fighters doing that before 1910, let me know!

 

As far as I can see there is only one poster saying this and it sure isn't me!

 

Big George beats the immortal Sam Langford...Just too big and powerful