Superfight-Burley vs Langford

I've only watched a limited amount of footage on either fighter.

Going from what I've seen, it seems as though this fight could resemble James Toney vs. Mike McCallum. Langford would be playing a Toney type role and Burley that of McCallum. I feel that in this match-up, Langford's power would be the difference.

Langford by close decision.

 

I've never seen Burley on film, I'd like to see him in action. By all acounts he was a helluva fighter. Obviously having recently completed a biography on Langford I have a very high opinion of him and his fighting abilities. I will take exception to some of the comments I have seen on this thread so far though in terms of the idea that Burley would be the 'better schooled' of the pair, and although it might be fair to say the era that Sam fought in was cruder, I certainly wouldn't say Langford was a crude fighter. Aggressive maybe, but very skilled in terms of feinting and counter punching, and in his prime he was said to be extremely good in terms of his judgement of distance. Fighters and fight reporters alike from that era all sang his praises.

I saw another comment on this thread about the possibility of Sam being stopped on cuts in a matchup between these two. I seriously doubt that would be the case. I don't recall that happening to him over the course of 300+ fights, though he did have to throw in the towel during his first fight with the heavyweight Fred Fulton in 1917 when he went blind in one eye, and the other closed due to swelling. But that was later in his career, when he was past his prime, and a good 7+ years after he was fighting anywhere near the middleweight limit. Sorry for promoting my book about Langford here, but if you'd really like to find out how great he was I urge you to pick up a copy and read about his entire career.

 

Langford was not wild he was just a pressure fighter in an era of primitive film.

Ironicaly Langford probably had a more modern style than Burley. Burley was a throwback to the age of Bob Fitzsimmons stylisticaly.

I actualy think that early in Langfords career (which I asume this to be based on his weight) Burley would probably take him at his peak.

Not wishing to turn things upside down here.

 

Yes, but due to his hectic resume he was ocasionaly loosing to middleweights even then.

Burley (who knocked out Elmer Ray in sparing) might be the wrong medicine at the wrong time.

 

Dunno McGrain...Burley seems like the sensible pick on this side...:good
When anyone faced a terror like Langford though, anything could happen...The ultra slick Burley would have to be ultra 'careful' in there. Langford is one of boxing's immortals,one of the true greats. I just feel the slippery Burley would present problems not commonly seen in the era. Jack Johnson was very adept at blocking and picking off incoming blows...Burley would roll his body completely out of harms way while maintaining counterng distance. burley would have to stay away from any inside stuff with the rougher, stronger Langford. Langford would be the 'danger man' in the fight. He is the one capable of doing the finishing here. I still think Burley could orchestrate the points win.
On the other hand, Given Langford's era, Sam problably would have felt he comfortably beat Burley at the end if it went the distance, due to his reasoning that he would have pressed the action, and Burley would not have.
Two greats.

 

First off, Langford's prime weight for most of his career should have been 160. He moved up because no one would fight him after a while and went after bigger purses. It's safe to say Langford could have stayed at 160 well into 1913 or so .... I go with Langford.

 

I find myself defending Burley against his most enthusiastic fan at the expense of my favourite fighter.

Life is full of these little ironies.