Would Langford Be Badly Beaten BY Modern Heavies?

I was taking those three at their light heavyweight peak. But your assessment is not unfair.

 

Just to clarify, Langford is the same height as Ricky Hatton

This content is protected

 

Yeah, I never understand where those sorts of claims come from either.

 

Sam Langford would probably beat a fair amount of current heavyweights.
But being 5'7 in a group of men who are 6'2 to 6'9 is not good news for him at all. I know he had long arms, but still ....

 

I'm normally quite courteous and helpful. Feel free to check my post history, anyone, if it's that big a deal.

Masking poor logic and an overwhelming bias by 'being a nice bloke' doesn't cut it with me I'm afraid. At some point you just have to stop talking ****.

Janitor talks ****. Maybe I'll go crying to the bosses of the internet about that.

 

Yes, its a huge height disparity, but Valuev is no ATG. It dosn't take a great fighter to beat him, and I would be prepared to take a smal bet that Langford would be able to do it. Lets not forgett that Holyfield essentialy managed it when he was pushing 50.

Langford was short, but he wasn't all that small. He could box, he could punch, he was mobile, he had every tool that he would need to do it. I would have a lot less concearns with this, than picking him over one of the Klitschko's.

 

Langford would probably 'beat' Valuev. Basically do what Holyfield and Haye did and hope for the decision.
It would be a pathetic fight.
In 12 rounds Langford would score 3 clean punches, to Valuev's body. Valuev would 'land' 3 of his oafish carresses.

 

So the fact Langford almost certainly wouldn't be able to reach Valuev's face throughout the face, as we can see from the photographic evidence of a man of the same height as Langford up against Valuev, isn't any issue for you here?

Holyfield is 8 inches taller than Langford for the record and Haye is 9inches taller

 

Langford isn't some magical human being that could only exist practically a hundred years ago. There's a reason we haven't see 5'7 people taking on heavyweights for the past 80 years. Because its simply no longer possible as the sport has evolved. He would lose to all the heavies in the top 10 right now, and it wouldn't be close.

 

I think Langford would probably beat a few of those guys. He would be a Top10 contender, maybe win an ABC belt with luck, but both Klitschkos would smash him.

Valuev would beat Langford, who would not be able to reach his opponent's face. Valuev's clinches would also tire Sam.

 

Valuev is so much bigger than any other beltholder, that you are always stepping into the unknown when you match him with an ATG. That certainly dosn't mean that he should be favoured over then because he is varry beatable.

My guess is that Langfor would be able to reach Valuev's chin. Turkey Tomphson who was 5' 8'', didn't seem to have any trouble reaching the chin of Ben Moroz who is often given as 7' 2''.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...y8bAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jEwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3472,6065504

 

That's pretty unreliable and by the sounds of it, he's a pretty **** fighter. Valuev although not a great boxer, at least has a few good wins on his resume and could box to a decent level.

 

There has not been a 5' 7'' fighter remotely like Langford in the past 80 years, and there was no magic involved, just a physical abnormality.

Langford was essentialy stunted. Although he was under 5' 7'', he had the chest neck and reach dimensions of a good sized heavyweight. He also had the punching power and chin to go with it.

Although he was short, he was still an absolute wrecking machine.