Sam Langford vs. Evander Holyfield, 15 rounds at CW, official poll.

Langford hit darn hard no doubt, but Holyfield's left hook compares to it and at 190 Holyfields right is a lethal weapon.

Langford when motivated was fine, but he could be very lazy and sometimes had a bit of dog in him

If you had his life style of course he could not give 100% all the time. Holyfield had the lifestyle of a pro athlete in the late 20th century, it gives him a massive advantage there, an advantage that helps cancel out some of the pros Langford would have over Holyfield.

 

I think Langford was the better fighter but Holyfield was a force to be reconed with,The Toney fight comes to mind, even though it was not a prime Evander...Langford could do it...but I lean toward Evander in a close one

 

The point I'm making is that Tyson is easily as durable as Langford, he's also bigger, stronger, fought bigger heavy punching men and rates about even in the chin department.

I'm not saying it'd be an absolute nailed on 100% cert but if Evander can stop Tyson it's not beyond comprehension that he could do the same to Langford. I can see it transcribing this way due to acumulative Holyfield attacks.

 

But I thought we are talking about 1988 190lbs Holyfield...

 

Is he though?

Langford had a lot more fights against punchers and was a lot further gone when he was finaly KOd.

I could easily argue that Langford was more durable.

 

My guess is that tyson had a better pure chin but Langford had better recuperative powers.

 

You are over selling Langford, he did hit hard and of course he was feared and avoided by many, but it always seemed there was enough doubts about him, for him to be avoided safely. But Dempsey really took grief for avoiding Wills and of course Jeffries too, took a lot of stick for avoiding Johnson for two years (1903-05). It may of been timing and sign of the times, but outside the NSC no really cared that Langford never got a shot at the championship.

No it is not harsh, it is a matter of fact. Pre 1960 fighters are generally greater because they fought more often against top quality opposition and that is a bias against the modern fighters; so to say a modern fighter would be in better shape because he would train properly and have a healthier lifestyle, is a case of turn about being fair play.

 

They are the primary data we have to go on when peicing together fighters like Sam Langford. People who were there on the day giving a blow by blow acount.

If you base your opinion of them soley on boxrec and the little film available you will not learn a lot.