Sam Langford vs. Joe Louis

Your first wave of paragraphs was all over the place. I just read through your second set of 10 paragraphs, and was about to respond but YOU SEND MORE. Now Im reading your 3rd set of paragraphs. Are you now also timing my response like speed chess? Hey buddy, take a breath. I will be right with you. Standby please...

 

Dude, I am online & answered when you spoke to me.
There is no cause to critique a peaceable response.
Nor was my text "all over the place". It all flowed logically. Anything you do not understand or if you want to specifically contest this-ask.
Are you saying this because I showed how some things you said could not be understood do to the grammar?

I am not at all "breathless", just replying systematically.
Nor was I urging you to respond quickly, or even today if inconvient.
I'll be offline, me checking the website & responding between surfing elsewhere when i see you wrote me is routine.
Relax.

 

I will be right with you..Standby please...

 

Yeah, I suspect he had read Louis at 218lbs, assumed that was his prime weight, was called out and then back tracked claiming he was basing his answer on the Louis who fought Charles. I could be wrong, would be pretty random if so and you'd have thought he would have specified it was that version of Louis his answer was based on.

Clay Moyles book on Langford is brilliant. It's some years since I read it. Rightly or wrongly, since reading it I always had the impression Langford grew into a natural 170-175lbs when in his best shape at his peak, but actually averaged c.180lbs during his best HW wins. From memory Clay described Langford's midsection as having a round, smooth appearance once he got above around 180lbs.

Nitpicking I know, but I've long since considered Sam as being 5ft 6.5ins. Amazing, incredible fighter.

 

Customary to perhaps every other poster here and on any other boxing site.

You said 218lbs and "HW champ Louis" in the very same sentence.

 

That was your exact post.

 

Really? Acording to you? Usually when a post is made it is specified so there is no confusion. You on the other hand thrive on confusion so you can twist words and manipulate. It was clear what I said you can fill in the dots.

 

Hey Buddy, here is some free advice that every MAN should know..Never ASSUME!

 

There are dozens and dozens of fantasy fight threads on this forum. Some specify a time period. Where they don't, every poster assumes both fighters at their prime. Read some if you don't believe me.

That's my polite, serious response, just in case you genuinely weren't aware. I now suspect you were aware and are trolling.

 

No im not trolling. I read alot of threads that specify and that dont. Alot of threads that have poor grammer then others that are clever and witty. Excuse me that you are unable to understand even though it was pretty clear to begin with. Thats on you not me.

 

I understood that the OP meant prime for prime, as hes since clarified. As did every other poster who responded to this thread. If you did not, that's on you, no one else.

 

Like I said before... As a Man Never Assume!

 

Thanks man!
You are good natured & scrupulously fair to all, that is appreciated.
He has not replied to me a day later, but of course everyone knows that unless specified, dream match ups are only the best for each man-not the heaviest weight you can find.
If he meant to show how Langford would do against the dethroned champ Louis who said he could see the openings but not react in time...
There is no other rational interpretation than he thought-as the post seemed to indicate in comparing their sizes-that the normal & prime weight of Joe Louis was at least over 10 lbs. over the heaviest anyone would use-& about exactly 20 lbs. if we go with what is conventionally used as his absolute peak, against Schmelling in Yankee Stadium.

So it is likely Langford was best at 170-175, I have heard 175-180, although it is possible @180-but unlikely the "roundness" would be enough to make any difference against all comers, so let's say ~ 175 tops.
And I do not know why to privilege 5'6".5 over slightly taller-unless because most guys & sources if anything tend to round up?
5'7.5" is also widely reported, who knows?

BUT either way historically & in any rational world we would be looking at him & comparing him to either:

A) Historically great LHWs: which is where he would have competed if the division even existed for most of his career, OR in all likelihood if the men there were usually around modern size...
B) In the last few decades with rehydration he clearly could easily be a MW!

Being an Ancient Mariner is tough enough-in lifestyle, in lack of modern training, science, in how many more people & groups there are to compete today...
At least compare him to those he is the SAME WEIGHT in the ring!

Otherwise, it is just as unfair as, say, considering Duran against LHW greats or above!
So why are we all most always comparing him only to HWs?
Just because that was the name of the division, is is UNFAIR.

The real question is: was Sam Langford great enough to be competitive with, orn a champion, against men of ANY era who were his size?

Like against Quai-whose best was mid 170's-190, & much of that was in the day of day before weigh ins-& he was this heavy just because of muscle, when even shorter than Langford...
Who would you favor?

And in the last 40 years, we can fairly compare him to the best MIDDLEWEIGHTS-because they weighed about the same as his best weight in the actual fights, correct?