Top Ten 175 Pounders?

You folks ever heard of Harry Greb?

 

Possibly but not absolute. I would give Tunney, Charles, Greb, Loughran and Spinks the best chances… maybe Moore.

 

I give harold Johnson at least a 50% chance to beat anybody that wasn't a puncher.

 

Complete?

Those guys fought with their fists out in the air and a cigarette hanging out the side of their mouth.

Scientific technicians of later years like Spinks , Charles , Louis make Greb , Langford etc look like amateurs.

 

Armatures down the local gym can do all that. Hell, even i'm able to parry and slip jabs.

Plus they fought nothing but Jerries, Carnies , Roustabout's and Mucker's.

The footage ive seen of him show me a bruiser swinging from his hips.

I don't put any stock in the writings of the time since they didn't now any better. Nobody knew back then what boxing would become.

 

The speed bit is possible and I know that the force of a punch is not just dependant on size and strength but still, I would have a hard time believing that any 175 pounder can land a jab with equal force as a 6'6" near 250Ib Klitschko who more often than more does punch his weight.

 

Sam did sell out on the attack and over commit to the hook. And yes, I am nitpicking. On film, he is lightyears ahead of his competition.... tho obviously we dont have a lot of footage.I go back and forth between Greb and Langford as the greatest ever.

 

I really like Clay Moyle's book on Sam, tho it would be great if there was an Adam Pollock type book on him. He certainly deserves more scholarship… as does Greb...

 

I think that this observation is very important to consider;


"Film is much more unreliable than achievements. There is no way in the world that somebody could watch two fighters (not knowing who they (or their opponents were) and then pick the winner of their fight based solely on this film, could be as successful as someone who looks at the records of the two fighters and their opponents and compares them. Film means very little in fight predictions."

We should discuss how valid that is. Also, some guys never look as goiod as they are. One reason is technical irrgularities that they can use to their advantage or minimize deficienies. Another is other factors like power & volume, endurance...More than make up for it.

Rocky & Ali are examples. Rocky also lacked physical tools, size/reach & speed & looked awkward, but he was much better than most all who looked better. Though against the best the deficiencies would be relevant.

I cannot imagine hoiw one can look at Langford & see him as an unskilled "swing from the heels" guy. While i cannot imagine him jabbing with equal force to Wlad, it is not just a matter of being able to Do isolated things like slip & parry. The way he put things together & thought on his feet, great inside & ouitside, as a boxer & slugger, looks remarkable.

 

Moore

 

Langford barely fought within the 175lb limit, and the best light heavyweight he beat Langford weighed over the limit.

I can't see how Fitz is a 'great' light heavyweight either. Both these two are more pound for pounders.

 

Kovalev is very good. He has a long way to go but I think he will prove to be a top 20 all time great.

Beterbiev is has Marvin Hagler toughness and a huge punch to compliment his skills. I think he's even better than Kovalev and will beat him if they fight.

 

Liston , for one would take him apart , not to mention many others.

This guys has about 10 loses to the black version of Jess Willard.

Langford is just folklore, brah.

 

So which fights are you referring to when you say you've seen this great jab.. tight guard... and weaving like Tyson?