RESULTS: 606 V2 Pound for Pound TOP 10 Greatest of All Time!

First topic message reminder :

The results are in! Please find below the top 10, and a further breakdown of the full listing. Many Thanks to all those who voted, a very good list IMO.

1 Sugar Ray Robinson (173W – 19L)
Robinson held the world welterweight title from 1946 to 1951, and won the world middleweight title in the latter year. He retired in 1952, only to come back two and a half years later and regain the middleweight title in 1955. He then became the first boxer in history to win a divisional world championship five times.

2 Harry Greb (261W – 19L)
World Middleweight boxing Champion from 1923 to 1926 and American Light Heavyweight title holder 1922–1923. He fought a recorded 303 times in his 13 year-career, against the best opposition the talent-rich 1910s & 20s could provide him, frequently squaring off against light-heavyweights and even heavyweights.

3 Henry Armstrong (149W – 21L)
Henry Jr. was a boxer who not only was a member of the exclusive group of fighters that have won boxing championships in three or more different divisions (at a time when there were fewer weight divisions than today), but also has the distinction of being the only boxer to hold three world championships at the same time.

4 Muhammad Ali (56W – 5L)
As an amateur, he won a gold medal in the light heavyweight division at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. After turning professional, he went on to become the first boxer to win the lineal heavyweight championship three times.

5 Ezzard Charles (93W – 25L)
Charles was an excellent fighter - Middleweight, Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight; He fought up through the ranks, tangled with the very best long the way and gained victories over them all - Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Archie Moore, "Jersey" Joe Walcott, Freddie Beshore, an older Joe Louis and Lee Oma - to name a few.

6 Roberto Duran (103W – 16L)
Durán is the only man in boxing history to win fights in 5 separate decades. He registered wins in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s. Many consider him the greatest lightweight of all time.

7 Sam Langford (200W – 47L)
Langford was a boxer who fought greats from the lightweight division right up to the heavyweights, beating many champions in the process. However, he was never able to secure a world title for himself. Called the "Greatest Fighter Nobody Knows," by ESPN.

8 Sugar Ray Leonard (36W – 3L)
Leonard was the first boxer to earn more than $100 million in purses, and he is widely considered to be one of the best boxers of all time, winning world titles in five weight divisions and defeating future fellow International Boxing Hall of Fame inductees Wilfred Benítez, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Durán and Marvin Hagler.

9 Willie Pep (229W - 11L)
Pep held the featherweight title for six years and outboxed all comers. He is best remembered for his physical four-fight series against fellow Hall of Famer Sandy Saddler.

10 Bob Fitzsimmons (51W - 8L)
A British Cornish boxer who made boxing history as the sport's first three-division world champion. He also achieved fame for beating Gentleman Jim Corbett, the man who beat John L. Sullivan, and is in The Guinness Book of World Records as the Lightest heavyweight champion.

Please find the full results below:

1 Sugar Ray Robinson
2 Harry Greb
3 Henry Armstrong
4 Muhammad Ali
5 Ezzard Charles
6 Roberto Duran
7 Sam Langford
8 Sugar Ray Leonard
9 Willie Pep
10 Bob Fitzsimmons
11 Eder Joffre
12 Joe Louis
13 Benny Leonard
14 Jimmy Wilde
15 Gene Tunney
16 Pernell Whittaker
17 Bernard Hopkins
18 Barney Ross
19 Floyd Mayweather
20 Roy Jones Jr.
21 Manny Pacquiao
22 Jack Johnson
23 Juan Manuel Marquez
24 Archie Moore
25 Lennox Lewis
26 Salvador Sanchez
T27 Marco Antonio Barrera
T27 Erik Morales

azania wrote:Anyway I'm off out for the day.

Home Secretary a friend of yours ?

I think it's really time to put this kind of debate to bed now, once and for all. A thread regarding who 606v2 users have collectively voted as the ten finest pound for pound boxers has been ruined, once more, by Azania on his WUM mission to degrade anyone and anything before the days of Muhammad Ali.

Come on people, I've been guilty of it I know, but there's simply little or no fight left in me when it comes to this stupid debate now. Why are we listening to Azania, and why are we bothering to debate it with him? Will he ever admit that he's way off the mark with his 'assessments?' No. Will he ever stop contradicting himself and making things up to suit his argument? No. Will it ever end with anything other than everyone wanting to bang their heads on a desk and put their foot through their computer screen through sheer frustration? No.

Azania tells us that he's seen Harry Greb's fights. He tells us that all fighters today - and yes Azania, you have said 'all', over and over again - are far more skilled and technical than those of past generations, but then gets all uppity when someone else points out how hapless Sultan Ibragimov looks when compared to Joe Gans. He says that the leaps and bounds in which the technical aspect of boxing has evolved over the last century or so is huge, but then states that the likes of Langford would have a chance in today's game if given six months to train and learn of these so-called massive changes which span over one hundred years. Comically, he tells us that all he needs is to watch a four minute highlight reel from YouTube to decipher which boxers are greater than others. And most incredibly of all, he tells us that he is in a better position to evaluate how good Langford was than the likes of Blackburn and Arcel.

Why are we bothering with his WUMing on this subject anymore? I'm not going to be debating this old / new debate with him from this point onwards, as he clearly doesn't know what he's on about or is simply looking to get a rise out of people now. By all means, I'll talk with him on other issues, but this is just daft now. Surely we can all see that we'll never get anywhere on this particular issue? It's goodbye from me, I just hope that nobody else involved suffers a bleedin' breakdown of sorts if they stay engaged in it.

Windy we know the deal on this subject now, surely we should just say that unless he has something new and insightful to offer he should not be able to ruin every thread that mentions an old timer?

Az - for when you get back on - saying "reflexes are better" or "hand eye coordination" is improved with modern training - you HAVE to say how. What's doing the improvement? What sorts of training techniques?

I refer you again to the point about Burley and the double right hands. You didn't answer me before - answer me now. He doubled everything up. No-one does that today. So how have things moved on? In that light they've regressed!

Azania

I have read through most of your posts and alot of them dont make sense. I take it the gist of what you are trying to say is that boxing has improved significantly over time and great fighters like Langford wold only be great in the context of a hypothetical weak and underdeveloped era.

The problem I have is that the vast majority of this seems to be based on your own assumptions, many of which are completely at odds with those who are relative experts in the field. When pressed, it generally just boils down to "things are better now" and any other opinions are largely based on nostalgia.

You also point to some kind of watershed moment in the 70s as a renaissance of boxing and a period of relative revolution in the sport. Yet I have not seen you support this conclusively whatsoever. What did Duran do so massively different in the 70s in his gym in Panama when he learned his trade? Did he have nutritional experts, modern equipment, personal intructors?

If you put the likes of Duran or Chavez on black and white grainy film then they probably look like amateurs to you aswell. Much of what they did superbly would be lost. Even on modern high definition tvs its difficult to appreciate split second reflexes and the art of rolling and slipping punches without slow motion replays.

Men who worked with these fighters, watched them train every day, boxed against them and so forth give glowing appraisals to many of these old era fighters even in the context of modern fighters yet any evidence that doesnt fit with your modern is better theory or post 70s advancements are largely dismissed as mindless nostalgia or mistake.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Oh thank god the retardedated one is leaving us for a bit

Was that really neccessary? You are making yourself look rather churlish.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:So your basing your opinion on four minutes of footage?

Of course you would want to believe that.

Regardless all I need is a 30 second montage to realise that these guys only possessed the fundermentals and were not as refined as guys who came 20 years after them.

Did Arcel and Futch know everything they knew in boxing after 5 years of being involved? Did they know more after 50 years? Do you think Arcel was a better trainer in the 1960s than he was in the 1930s? Ditto Futch.

No one has yet attempted to answer the question. Windy skirted and went passed it with a passing comment that didn't address it. Perhaps you (and others) can try. Its a simple yes/no answer.

Okay, az, I'll be delighted to answer it. No skirting, just a head on answer.

Arcel and Futch knew a DAMNED SIGHT MORE THAN YOU and their opinions are drastically different to yours.

Windy, once again you totally evade the question. I didn't ask if they knew more than me. I asked if they knew more after 50 years of boxing than after 5 years.

Try again old man.

I've already answered it, several posts ago, or is your eyesight failing due to an overdose of creatine ?

It is BECAUSE they had so much experience that their opinions are so valuable. Would you prefer I write the answer in German, or do you understand it this time ? I'm very sorry that I haven't mastered gibberish yet, but your lessons are most valuable and I feel that I will be able to communicate with you in your native tongue before too long.

I haven't asked how valuable their opinions were. I asked if their knowledge of boxing and training was more after 50 years of being involved in the sport of after 5 years. Please answer in whatever language you prefer. I can always use google translator. Feel free to use Afrikaans. I wont require google translator for that.

Come on windy. You're ducking more than Pac.

Colonial Lion wrote:Azania

I have read through most of your posts and alot of them dont make sense. I take it the gist of what you are trying to say is that boxing has improved significantly over time and great fighters like Langford wold only be great in the context of a hypothetical weak and underdeveloped era.

The problem I have is that the vast majority of this seems to be based on your own assumptions, many of which are completely at odds with those who are relative experts in the field. When pressed, it generally just boils down to "things are better now" and any other opinions are largely based on nostalgia.

You also point to some kind of watershed moment in the 70s as a renaissance of boxing and a period of relative revolution in the sport. Yet I have not seen you support this conclusively whatsoever. What did Duran do so massively different in the 70s in his gym in Panama when he learned his trade? Did he have nutritional experts, modern equipment, personal intructors?

If you put the likes of Duran or Chavez on black and white grainy film then they probably look like amateurs to you aswell. Much of what they did superbly would be lost. Even on modern high definition tvs its difficult to appreciate split second reflexes and the art of rolling and slipping punches without slow motion replays.

Men who worked with these fighters, watched them train every day, boxed against them and so forth give glowing appraisals to many of these old era fighters even in the context of modern fighters yet any evidence that doesnt fit with your modern is better theory or post 70s advancements are largely dismissed as mindless nostalgia or mistake.

Mr Lion

I dont know how you can say that you have been reading my posts and then say I have mentioned a watershed moment in the 1970s. I haven't. I'll post part of a response I gave to Oxring on Page 4 which imo clarifies my position and shows a shift in my thinking. Spelling mistakes and typos included.
====================

I will make an admission here. I have been dismissive towards boxers of the 40s and 50s. I was wrong. Totally wrong (rocky is still cr@p imo). I have also said on this thread that I am specifically referring to boxers when boxing was in its infancy. To say that guys like Gans, Langford et al had the equivalent skillset as boxers today is plainly wrong imo. Using Judo, its like comparing me (blue betl) to a 3rd dan black belt. There is no coparison. For one I didn't study all the moves or know as much as someone who had or who had been coached by someone who had.
================================================================

The basis of my argument is simple. Boxers in the infancy of the sport did not have the skillsets later developed to make then equiped to compete effectively with boxers that came 20 yesrs later. The reason for my shift in position is because I have spent many hours watching older boxers. I realised that their moves are much the same as now (even with HDTV). But there was a marked difference with boxers pre WW1. A huge difference in fact. Someone mentioned Burley. I cant find any criticism of him. I cant find criticism for any title holder pre 1970 (Rocky being the exception). In short I was wrong.

Now on this thread I have not mentioned or given any criticism to any boxer (Rocky being the exception) of yesteryear. I have praised all. I have not criticised boxers from 1920s onwards. Yet some still persist in claiming I am being disrespectful towards and dismissing them and applying some unknown watershed moment created by themselves as I have NOT mentioned anything of that nature on this thread.

Having looked at guys like Gans, SL, Johnson et al, whilst good, they didn't possess the skillset of boxers in the 1920s regardless of the skill. IMO Dempsey would KO Johnson with ease. Why? For the simple reason being that Dempsey would have the knowledge of the style of JJ whereas JJ would not know anything about the style of JD. JD would be able to counter Johnson's moves aand not vice versa. Also JD had the skills to apply them. Without the required skills it wont happen.

Looking at videos of SL, the writer seems amazed he could parry and slip jabs etc. It seems a novelty then. I would be surprised if any active contender today of over the past 50 years (Rocky being the exception) didn't learn how to do that as soon as they laced up gloves for the first time. Look at how he throws uppercuts. He leaves himself wide open for an overhand KO shot. His feignting whilst good looked so contrived and un-natural it beggers belief.

Now these guys were pioneers of our sport. They knew a lot, but not as much as their equivalent who came 20 years later. Its called progression. Subtle changes in the application made huge differences. Therein lay the fabled quantum leap people apply to my thoughts here.

88Chris05 wrote:I think it's really time to put this kind of debate to bed now, once and for all. A thread regarding who 606v2 users have collectively voted as the ten finest pound for pound boxers has been ruined, once more, by Azania on his WUM mission to degrade anyone and anything before the days of Muhammad Ali.

Come on people, I've been guilty of it I know, but there's simply little or no fight left in me when it comes to this stupid debate now. Why are we listening to Azania, and why are we bothering to debate it with him? Will he ever admit that he's way off the mark with his 'assessments?' No. Will he ever stop contradicting himself and making things up to suit his argument? No. Will it ever end with anything other than everyone wanting to bang their heads on a desk and put their foot through their computer screen through sheer frustration? No.

Azania tells us that he's seen Harry Greb's fights. He tells us that all fighters today - and yes Azania, you have said 'all', over and over again - are far more skilled and technical than those of past generations, but then gets all uppity when someone else points out how hapless Sultan Ibragimov looks when compared to Joe Gans. He says that the leaps and bounds in which the technical aspect of boxing has evolved over the last century or so is huge, but then states that the likes of Langford would have a chance in today's game if given six months to train and learn of these so-called massive changes which span over one hundred years. Comically, he tells us that all he needs is to watch a four minute highlight reel from YouTube to decipher which boxers are greater than others. And most incredibly of all, he tells us that he is in a better position to evaluate how good Langford was than the likes of Blackburn and Arcel.

Why are we bothering with his WUMing on this subject anymore? I'm not going to be debating this old / new debate with him from this point onwards, as he clearly doesn't know what he's on about or is simply looking to get a rise out of people now. By all means, I'll talk with him on other issues, but this is just daft now. Surely we can all see that we'll never get anywhere on this particular issue? It's goodbye from me, I just hope that nobody else involved suffers a bleedin' breakdown of sorts if they stay engaged in it.

It seems people are debating ME and not what I have written on this thread.

But I will add that picking the best from one era and the worst from another is hardly the basis of hinest debate. Instead of Sultan, why not use the K Bros?

Also where have I said that I know more than Arcel? I have repeatedly asked if Arcel knew more after 5 years or 50 years. I haven't had a response that address that simple yes/no question. I have had answers saying that Arcel knows more than me (evidently he does). I have had answers saying that Arcel had more experience and his opinions are more valuable (evidently they are). But I have NOT had an answer to the question. Despite protestations and in whatever language.

oxring wrote:Az - for when you get back on - saying "reflexes are better" or "hand eye coordination" is improved with modern training - you HAVE to say how. What's doing the improvement? What sorts of training techniques?

I refer you again to the point about Burley and the double right hands. You didn't answer me before - answer me now. He doubled everything up. No-one does that today. So how have things moved on? In that light they've regressed!

I didn't answer Burley question because I agree with you.

As for training to improve reflexes and hand eye coordination. Elite boxers now do sprint drills as part of their training. Sprint drills are not simply designed to increase running speed but all round speed. Any sprint coach will tell you that the speed not only comes from cadence, but from the shoulders pumping which is coodinated with the leg speed. The faster the shoulder pumps in coordination with the legs then the sprinter runs faster. So to increase speed you increase fast twitch muscles. By increasing those muscles (which we have) you also increase reflexes. Reacting to the gun in sprinting is almost an instinct as those muscles are honed and finely tunes. On a level playing field in a 100m race, the race is often won in the first 10m.

WRT hand/eye stuff. There is a machine which the boxer/athlete stands infront with lights appear randomly and the boxer taps the light when it lights up. Similar machines are used. Some look like fairground stuff. It adds hand eye coordination because the athlete has a spilt second to hit it before it disappears. The more he uses it the more lights/objects he hits. This also improves peripheral vision. When applied and used in boxing, the changes are very subtle, minute even, but the effect could be a W or an L next to their name. And with the amount of money in boxing nothing is left to chance.

I'll add that Haye uses sprint training to his overall training resume. Any ideas why? Holyfield does the same. Many now use a bungee rope when doing sprint drills. Soon boxers will go to the Extreme Couture gym to use his even more advanced equipment. Its almost space age.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Anyway I'm off out for the day.

Home Secretary a friend of yours ?

Ha. I'm not a Tory voter.

Azania

With respect, I have read an awful lot of posts from you that allude to the sport only taking off in the 70s and which belittle older era fighters. For example:

"The 1970s is when sports science really took off, so its no great surprise that improvements in speed, strength etc occurred then. Also bear in mind that TV made a huge impact bringing in more money into sports generally making improvement almost increase beyond belief. Boxers are not just fighters anymore. They are well tunes fighting athletes."

"I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it."

My point is that my perception of your own point of view has been fashioned from reading your posts. I would therefore appreciate if you did not act like an aggrieved party when I attribute some of these comments to you.

I am glad to see that discussing the older eras has encouraged you to explore them more fully and its good to see that you have changed your views on many of the older era fighters. Hopefully this thread will encourge you to explore the career of Langford further and you may again be surprised to see your own opinion change. It has happened to me plenty of times that my opinion of some of the fighters before my time has changed drastically upon further reading and investigation.

To the point in question, I understand what you are saying about Langford, although it took me a while to get there. Correct me if I am wrong but is it not:

Langford was great in his own era BUT this era was one that was weak and underdeveloped and hence his ACTUAL ability would not translate into being a skilled fighter today?

I appreciate you do not want to be seen as running down Langford, but to be honest, saying Langford would lose to Nigel Benn is essentially doing this in my opinion and selling Langford tragically short when you consider the mans acheivements.

What I am arguing is that Langford would be great in any era, not just his own. You are all but saying otherwise if you are arguing that Benn would beat him. Who did Benn beat that compared with Langfords record over several weights? There is no comparison other than a general assumption that things are better now. Just an asumption. I find it far easier to assume that Langford who beat most of the top men in his day and fought and beat the likes of Wills, McVea, Jeanette, Jackson, etc , who was held in the greatest esteem by many respected fighters and trainers was better than Nigel Benn who won a portion of fragmented titles and lost half of his big fights.

Whatever way I look at it, you promote a boxing evolution theory. In case you feel aggreived at this accusation, I will say that you also acknowledge past greats. The problem is, for the most part you confine them to a period that your theory suggests is obsolete to varying degrees.

I have to say that most of this is unsupported speculation, often in the face of counter evidence and testimony from respected figures. Its incredibly vague and you neglect to explain tangibly what the theory is based on.

For instance, the quote I provided above from yourself indicates the 70s saw some kind of revolution. Do you stand by that or have you altered your view? You also say on this thread now you are talking about Langfords time as being underdeveloped and are using the point that knowlege of the sport has increased, thus standards are higher.

Can you please start explaining where these leaps forward occur? Because if you mean its happening incrementally (i.e boxing is constantly improving) then this era should be incrementally better than 15 or 20 years ago which in turn is incrementally better than 15 or 20 years before that - and so forth. Thus for example:

Klitschko>Tyson>Ali etc
Martinez>Hagler>Monzon etc
Marquez>Whitaker>Duran etc

I think its obvious this isnt the case. So this idea that boxing is constantly geting better, that increased knowledge of the sport passed on and so forth is not neccessarily improving fighters at all. Ali was around over 40 years ago which is a significant time ago. With an added 40 years of boxing expertise to avail of has there been a better heavyweight since?

If you are not advocating this "boxing is getting better and moving on over time" approach, can you please pinpoint exactly when these sudden leaps forward in boxing were made that render Langford uncompetitive today and provide reasons why you think so?

Boxings rich history has indicated to me that eras may vary and quality may vary in different weight classes over eras. For example the 50s was a golden age of great lightheavyweights that has probably not been matched. But it was a relatively weak era for heavyweights compared to the 70s for example.

I think the current climate of boxing has leant itself to lesser fighters and there has been a slide in quality since the days I began following the sports and before. I attribute this to a great number of reasons and suffice to say I give somebody like Nigel Benn or his current equivalent Froch very little chance of beating Sam Langford at his best.

Absolutely superb post if I might say so, Colonial Lion.

You have, most eloquently and without a hint of frustration, summed up exactly how I feel, and in the minutest detail.

Not only do I applaud the content, but also your commendable patience, since mine deserted me quite a few posts ago.

azania wrote:Also where have I said that I know more than Arcel? I have repeatedly asked if Arcel knew more after 5 years or 50 years. I haven't had a response that address that simple yes/no question.

I didn't say you've claimed to know more than Arcel, but you have suggested that you're in a better position to assess Langford than he is for all intents and purposes; whenever anyone brings Arcel's testimony on Langford in to the equation, you dismiss it and tell us that it should be taken with a pinch of salt and doesn't really mean all that much, as old-timers are "prone to hyperbole." You have absolutely no evidence, not even in the slightest, to support this idea that Arcel would automatically favour the old timers, particularly as he is quoted as saying that Nicolino Locche was a greater talent than Benny Leonard and Willie Pep. If you want to put your own views forward, of course that's fine, but you can't simply imply that the views of others don't count as they are gripped by nostalgia, particularly when you have no proof of this.

In fact, most of those who came in to contact with Arcel maintain that he was very grounded and never got carried away / biased in his appraisal of a fighter, regardless of what era they boxed in. Boxing historian Mike Hunnicut interviewed and talked personally with Arcel many times and had this to say about him: "Did Arcel dwell in the past as an older man? Well, he trained modern fighters like Roberto Duran and saw the vastly underrated Argentine master, Nicolino Locche, and couldn’t speak highly enough of those greats. In the brilliant wizard Locche, Arcel saw a man he described as being even cleverer than Willie Pep."

"You have to understand that guys like Arcel are very measured and understated in their descriptions of fighters. It takes a lot to impress them, because they get to see and handle so many quality operators. If they tell you a guy was ‘pretty good’, they usually mean ‘excellent’. They may also take some time to warm to you and therefore warm to the subject. Arcel was a very quiet and polite man by nature, unbelievably knowledgeable about the fight game, yet never one to brag about how much he knew."

Azania, your question regarding Arcel has been answered already. But to satisfy you, I'll answer emphatically - yes, Arcel would obviously have known more about boxing and it's many intricacies after fifty-odd years in the game than he would have done after five. Yes, he would. Are you happy enough with that answer? Good. Now then, let me explain how this reflects on Langford (and his contemporaries of that era, such as Benny Leonard, Jack Dempsey and so on). By the seventies, Arcel had seen just about everything there is to see in boxing - but still, he maintained that many of the men he trained in the twenties were just as great, sometimes greater, than those he had done in the seventies. Not greater 'if they had six months training to learn the changes in boxing' over those fifty years, not 'greater when measured in context of eras' either - simply greater, full stop.

It's because Arcel knew so much by the seventies / eighties that his assessment of Langford is so reliable. After half a century of meticuloudly studying the sport, he'd seen more great fighters than you could shake a stick at; and yet, Langford was still very close to the top of the pile. Arcel was not "gripped by nostalgia" or "prone to hyperbole." Quite clearly, he simply believed that great fighters feature in any and every era, which they do. He gave fighters from older and newer generations equal praise when it was deserved. It's just a shame that you can't do the same.

Coloniol Lion,

Great post there and certainly some food for thought. I have to say I agree with most of what you say.

However I do think the sport has seen changes and various departures since the birthplace of the gloved era.

My take on it is that changes and innovations were most prominant at the beginning. The curve if you will was steepest at the start and has levelled out (or possibly as you might argue declined).

I think its fair to say that changes were most significant at the start. There was a thread recently which covered the merits of Corbett for example. He was seen as an innovator in many ways of a new style and most of his opponents were unfamiliar to his more methodical boxing at range and employment of tools such as the jab. Naturally this style has become commonplace but for the time it was pretty new. Therefore I think its reasonable to say against fighters in later eras who were used to this kind of fighting Corbett would not neccessrily have been as effective and that the style he began employing has been developed significantly and become mainstream.

Then you also consider factors like the number of rounds they boxed then which were longer and leant to a style of more energy conserving in 20+ round fights, or the newspaper decision rules which meant titles could only pass by knockout. I think that this lends itself to the development and widespread practice of new styles and techniques. The style employed by Johnson or Jeffries for a 25-30 rounder may have been perfected by them but would not really translate well to a 12 round format.

If I had to give a timeframe I would say that by the time of Joe Louis most of the developments had taken place and 10/15 rounders were the overwhelming predominant length of championship bouts. Thus 1890 - 1930
I would say saw a period of relatively high change and developments within the sport as boxing moved from bareknuckle and london ring rules to the gloved marquis de queensbury rules and you see the end of the newspaper decision era and the diminishing of the colour line. After this period I think the curve pretty much levels out and as you say peaks and troughs within weightclasses and eras occur naturally as opposed due to incremental advancement.

The difficulty is assesing the magnitude of the changes and the bearing it has on the great fighters of those earlier eras. I dont think the changes neccessarily mean a great fighter then cant be great now. Certainly I would not back someody like Benn to beat Langford on the basis of changes that happened in the sport. I dont think it works like that and to say that assumes far too much. Langford would be more than capable of being competitive nowadays in my opinion as his record and acheivements would attest to.

Like yourself I am not sold at all on a kind of boxing evoltion theory that equates to average fighters now being better than great fighters then. I think differences are far more subtle. But I do think the sport underwent some big changes in the first 20/30 years since moving to the gloved era which levelled out long ago. The closer you get to the bareknuckle days and style I think the greater the adaptations needed by fighter in question to translate nowadays. With the exception of the heavyweights where I think the size issue plays a part, I think men like Langford existed in a time of change but I see no reason why it would equate to him being below somebody like Benn. I think a fairer comparison would be to match him with guys like Hopkins and fellow greats as I think hes proved and has earned the right to be matched with all time greats rather than an idea that he translates into being average today.

Colonial Lion wrote:Azania

With respect, I have read an awful lot of posts from you that allude to the sport only taking off in the 70s and which belittle older era fighters. For example:

"The 1970s is when sports science really took off, so its no great surprise that improvements in speed, strength etc occurred then. Also bear in mind that TV made a huge impact bringing in more money into sports generally making improvement almost increase beyond belief. Boxers are not just fighters anymore. They are well tunes fighting athletes."

"I have seen footage of Louis hitting a speedball. He almost had to think before hitting it."

My point is that my perception of your own point of view has been fashioned from reading your posts. I would therefore appreciate if you did not act like an aggrieved party when I attribute some of these comments to you.

I am glad to see that discussing the older eras has encouraged you to explore them more fully and its good to see that you have changed your views on many of the older era fighters. Hopefully this thread will encourge you to explore the career of Langford further and you may again be surprised to see your own opinion change. It has happened to me plenty of times that my opinion of some of the fighters before my time has changed drastically upon further reading and investigation.

To the point in question, I understand what you are saying about Langford, although it took me a while to get there. Correct me if I am wrong but is it not:

Langford was great in his own era BUT this era was one that was weak and underdeveloped and hence his ACTUAL ability would not translate into being a skilled fighter today?

I appreciate you do not want to be seen as running down Langford, but to be honest, saying Langford would lose to Nigel Benn is essentially doing this in my opinion and selling Langford tragically short when you consider the mans acheivements.

What I am arguing is that Langford would be great in any era, not just his own. You are all but saying otherwise if you are arguing that Benn would beat him. Who did Benn beat that compared with Langfords record over several weights? There is no comparison other than a general assumption that things are better now. Just an asumption. I find it far easier to assume that Langford who beat most of the top men in his day and fought and beat the likes of Wills, McVea, Jeanette, Jackson, etc , who was held in the greatest esteem by many respected fighters and trainers was better than Nigel Benn who won a portion of fragmented titles and lost half of his big fights.

Whatever way I look at it, you promote a boxing evolution theory. In case you feel aggreived at this accusation, I will say that you also acknowledge past greats. The problem is, for the most part you confine them to a period that your theory suggests is obsolete to varying degrees.

I have to say that most of this is unsupported speculation, often in the face of counter evidence and testimony from respected figures. Its incredibly vague and you neglect to explain tangibly what the theory is based on.

For instance, the quote I provided above from yourself indicates the 70s saw some kind of revolution. Do you stand by that or have you altered your view? You also say on this thread now you are talking about Langfords time as being underdeveloped and are using the point that knowlege of the sport has increased, thus standards are higher.

Can you please start explaining where these leaps forward occur? Because if you mean its happening incrementally (i.e boxing is constantly improving) then this era should be incrementally better than 15 or 20 years ago which in turn is incrementally better than 15 or 20 years before that - and so forth. Thus for example:

Klitschko>Tyson>Ali etc
Martinez>Hagler>Monzon etc
Marquez>Whitaker>Duran etc

I think its obvious this isnt the case. So this idea that boxing is constantly geting better, that increased knowledge of the sport passed on and so forth is not neccessarily improving fighters at all. Ali was around over 40 years ago which is a significant time ago. With an added 40 years of boxing expertise to avail of has there been a better heavyweight since?

If you are not advocating this "boxing is getting better and moving on over time" approach, can you please pinpoint exactly when these sudden leaps forward in boxing were made that render Langford uncompetitive today and provide reasons why you think so?

Boxings rich history has indicated to me that eras may vary and quality may vary in different weight classes over eras. For example the 50s was a golden age of great lightheavyweights that has probably not been matched. But it was a relatively weak era for heavyweights compared to the 70s for example.

I think the current climate of boxing has leant itself to lesser fighters and there has been a slide in quality since the days I began following the sports and before. I attribute this to a great number of reasons and suffice to say I give somebody like Nigel Benn or his current equivalent Froch very little chance of beating Sam Langford at his best.

Colonel

Thanks for your response. Let me clear up a few things from the get go. My views about improvements in the 1970s have shifted. Skills were there. But what has improved is sports medicine and the science behind it. I maintain that modern boxers have benefitted from it in a way those pre 1970s did not. It has made some boxers better athletes, but that does not make them better boxers. A fit athlete without the skills just is a fit athlete. Natural ability cannot be gained from better training or diet.

Langford came from an era where rules were yet top be established fully. Where boxing was relatively new in terms of the Mqs of Queensbury. As such tactics were still being developed. Therefore it stands to reason that regardless of how great he was, he simply did not know as much as guys who came 20 years after him. Styles were fully developed imo prior to WW2. Training and trainers knew more and how to counter certain moves and styles. In the era of SL (1905 approx) they did not now as much as they did in 1935. It comes from experience, hence my persistence with the Arcel issue.

The reason why I'd pick Benn is because he could be able to counter moves by SL far easier than vice versa. The reason is because Benn has the accumulated wealth of different styles available whereas SL did not. Benn just knows more. SL is probably the more talented guy, but his talents could not be harnessed to its full potential or even to 75% of its potential. If SL at the time had the training and facilities, knowledge etc available to him that are available now, then the story would be entirely different. He didn't hence I would pick Benn over him.

Excellent post manos.

But Langford probably decapitates someone like Benn in a round or two

The Mighty Atom wrote:But Langford probably decapitates someone like Benn in a round or two

That's your opinion. I disagree for the reasons stated above.

But by that logic literally anyone of this generation could beat Langford including you and me, knowledge is useless without application

The Mighty Atom wrote:But by that logic literally anyone of this generation could beat Langford including you and me, knowledge is useless without application

And what logic is that?

Azania

What makes you think that firstly Benn knew more about boxing and techniques than Langford and secondly that this makes is sufficient to beat him?

Fighters are individuals. Saying Benn knew more than Langford or was more skilled or whatever doesnt hold weight. Langford boxed far more rounds against far better oppossition and was far more experienced. The accumulated experience of over 200 fights measures up well against Benn who didnt fight even a quarter of that.

You are assuming that because Benn operated in the 90s that he automatically must have so much more knowledge than Langford and be adapt at fighting styles across the board. This is far from the case. Benn was a reasonably limited fighter who was an explosive power puncher. He is hardly the epitomy of a great adaptive fighter who can switch from styles because he has a century of boxing knowledge in him. Just because moves on a century does not mean fighters are born with this built in to them.

Again we go back to the same issue which is that fundementally you think because Benn existed later, he knew more, was more skilled and was better. Its literally just a (misplaced) assumption. How does this work? Many fighters nowadays are clueless as to boxings history, many have mediocre trainers who also lack th expertise of past trainers. Its entirely subjective as opposed to some kind of constant.

Hatton is a modern era fighter. His trainer for the most part was Billy Graham. Now does this equate into him having all this accumulated knowledge and experience of a century of boxing? Of course not! Graham was an average trainer and Hatton was completely one dimensional. Would he beat Benny Leonard? Was he better or more skilled? The fighter in question is the important thing.

If you hold to your way of thinking then theoretically any prospective boxer can walk into any gym today and he is automatically assumed to have all these benefits you dont give Langford. A good trainer and and a modern gym cant make an average fighter a great - which is what Benn was essentially in an overall sense. The important thing is skill and ability. Langford possesed this in such abundance that the greatest gym in the world and the greatest team of trainers in history could not put Benn on that level of ability even if they knew everything there is possibly to know about boxing.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:But by that logic literally anyone of this generation could beat Langford including you and me, knowledge is useless without application

And what logic is that?

The logic that Benn knows more than Langford which considering his one dimensional style is very unlikely, of the past 20 years Hopkins has probably had the best boxing brain but without having his skill and talent the application of that knowledge wouldn't be that great.

Application is far more important than knowledge, in Alis younger days it's arguable that Archie Moores knowledge of the game was second to none but his stringent application of technique drove Ali to Dundee who was more willing to allow Ali to express himself despite going against everything the boxing textbook would say, how do you explain that?

Colonial Lion wrote:Azania

What makes you think that firstly Benn knew more about boxing and techniques than Langford and secondly that this makes is sufficient to beat him?

Fighters are individuals. Saying Benn knew more than Langford or was more skilled or whatever doesnt hold weight. Langford boxed far more rounds against far better oppossition and was far more experienced. The accumulated experience of over 200 fights measures up well against Benn who didnt fight even a quarter of that.

You are assuming that because Benn operated in the 90s that he automatically must have so much more knowledge than Langford and be adapt at fighting styles across the board. This is far from the case. Benn was a reasonably limited fighter who was an explosive power puncher. He is hardly the epitomy of a great adaptive fighter who can switch from styles because he has a century of boxing knowledge in him. Just because moves on a century does not mean fighters are born with this built in to them.

Again we go back to the same issue which is that fundementally you think because Benn existed later, he knew more, was more skilled and was better. Its literally just a (misplaced) assumption. How does this work? Many fighters nowadays are clueless as to boxings history, many have mediocre trainers who also lack th expertise of past trainers. Its entirely subjective as opposed to some kind of constant.

Hatton is a modern era fighter. His trainer for the most part was Billy Graham. Now does this equate into him having all this accumulated knowledge and experience of a century of boxing? Of course not! Graham was an average trainer and Hatton was completely one dimensional. Would he beat Benny Leonard? Was he better or more skilled? The fighter in question is the important thing.

If you hold to your way of thinking then theoretically any prospective boxer can walk into any gym today and he is automatically assumed to have all these benefits you dont give Langford. A good trainer and and a modern gym cant make an average fighter a great - which is what Benn was essentially in an overall sense. The important thing is skill and ability. Langford possesed this in such abundance that the greatest gym in the world and the greatest team of trainers in history could not put Benn on that level of ability even if they knew everything there is possibly to know about boxing.

Jaysus Christ . I'm going to bed. Its quarter past midnight and I have to be up early. That post has exhausted my mental powers to respond with the respect it deserves.

I will answer tomorrow.

But I'll give this a stab:
What makes you think that firstly Benn knew more about boxing and techniques than Langford and secondly that this makes is sufficient to beat him?

By virtue of the fact that he has been taught far more than SL ever was aware existed. Acquired knowledge of more styles that was around when SL was active and that SL was not taught as much as Benn.

Secondly who is win is very subjective. I would pick Benn for reasons stated earlier. I will respond more fully tomorrow.

How do you know Benn was taught all these things, looking at how he fought it's a safe assumption to say he wasn't and you are barking up the wrong tree entirely. The problem many of us have is you are picking Benn not because of his style or ability but rather his date of birth which is very naive of a boxing fan.

What styles weren't around in Langfords day that were in Benns, please give a detailed breakdown with specific details rather than the usual generalisations.

"By virtue of the fact that he has been taught far more than SL ever was aware existed. Acquired knowledge of more styles that was around when SL was active and that SL was not taught as much as Benn."

How do you know this? It makes no sense. What was Benn taught? How to hit a punching bag? Jump rope? Was he sat in front of a dvd player and shown volume after volume of boxing history until it sank in? How do you know how good his trainers were let alone what they taught him? Its all assumptions.

Using your assumption why stop at Benn? Macklin, Barker, DeGale, Groves all probably beat him aswell then for the same reasons you suggest Benn does - "taught more than him". You are placing ability as the bottom rung when its clearly one of the most important factors.

Manos was right above, the absolute bare minimun that Langford deserves is to be matched in the context of the greats of other eras. Not dragged down to the level of someone like Benn which I find absurd and baseless.

You are assuming that because Benn operated in the 90s that he automatically must have so much more knowledge than Langford and be adapt at fighting styles across the board. This is far from the case. Benn was a reasonably limited fighter who was an explosive power puncher. He is hardly the epitomy of a great adaptive fighter who can switch from styles because he has a century of boxing knowledge in him. Just because moves on a century does not mean fighters are born with this built in to them.

I am not assuming that whatsoever. I could have chosen other fighters in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s also. Hagler, Monzon, Graham, Zale, LaMotta, Cerdan and Dick Tiger who I believe knew more and had the talent to beat SL. Whether or not they would have beaten SL had he had the training and the knowledge to fulfil his ability is another matter. I chose Benn because his name popped up and I believe he had the talent to go with his training and leart skills which would be far too much for SL. Some fighters would remain talentless regardless of what they are taught.

From what I have seen of SL, whilst good for the early days of boxing, imo would be found wanting 25 years later against top class opposition. Its not an issue of fighters active in the 1990s being autmatically better. A talented fighter in the 1970s, 80 et al perhaps.

Whilst slipping a jab, parrying punches etc were seen as something unique then, most decent british level fighters are taught that. Some are better than others obviously. But SL fought at a time when such things were relatively new and were being taught to elite fighters. Its common now. Arcel in his first 5 years was a very good trainer. 20 years later he knew more and was a better trainer for it.

Good point about Graham. He was an average trainer, but I believe that he would know more about the various styles etc that the fellow who trained SL. He started from a blank sheet, whereas Graham did not. It doesn't make Graham a better trainer. It makes him a more informed one. The blueprint had been set and almost completed. Hatton may have been one dimensional but he was highly effective and found wanting only at the very highest level. He was also quite adept at slipping punches and getting into range to land his body shots. If he were around in the 1900s he would have been viewed as a freak of nature.

If you hold to your way of thinking then theoretically any prospective boxer can walk into any gym today and he is automatically assumed to have all these benefits you dont give Langford. A good trainer and and a modern gym cant make an average fighter a great - which is what Benn was essentially in an overall sense. The important thing is skill and ability. Langford possesed this in such abundance that the greatest gym in the world and the greatest team of trainers in history could not put Benn on that level of ability even if they knew everything there is possibly to know about boxing.

That prespective boxer has to have a certain level of talent otherwise it wouldbe pointless. If a talented guy waks into a gym but is trained in a limited manner, he will remain a limited fighter regardless of his talent. Unfortunately imo, SL did not get the benefit of the knowledge that was developed 20 years later to fully realise his vast talents. He would only develop a fraction ofit. That fraction would not be enough to beat a very good fighter in later years, Benn included.

That is my opinion. Highly subjective of course, but pitting old vs newer is subjective.

Perhaps, az, you'd care to explain why you are so scathing about Marciano.

Here's a man who was operating roughly forty years after Johnson, had one of the greatest trainers - some say the greatest - in boxing history, had inhuman stamina, an incredible power - to - weight ratio, indomitable will, sound chin and the guts of ten men.

According to you he was a carthorse.

How come his trainer didn't teach him the feints, sidesteps and blocking skills of Johnson ? Or the slipping skills and wonderful combinations of Louis ? The bob and weave of Dempsey ? The footwork of Tunney ?

Fighters are individuals, with different strengths and weaknesses, different physiques and different styles. Marciano was a great fighter in his own way, and probably drew zero influence from Johnson or Tunney, though I suspect Goldman taught him a few of Dempsey's punching techniques.

Every single generation from the dawn of the gloved age to the present has produced great fighters who were blessed with natural, God - given talent, and it is absurd to say otherwise.

Perhaps you'd care to tell us from which blueprint Ali or Jones Junior were ' taught ' their styles. Or Locche.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:But by that logic literally anyone of this generation could beat Langford including you and me, knowledge is useless without application

And what logic is that?

The logic that Benn knows more than Langford which considering his one dimensional style is very unlikely, of the past 20 years Hopkins has probably had the best boxing brain but without having his skill and talent the application of that knowledge wouldn't be that great.

Application is far more important than knowledge, in Alis younger days it's arguable that Archie Moores knowledge of the game was second to none but his stringent application of technique drove Ali to Dundee who was more willing to allow Ali to express himself despite going against everything the boxing textbook would say, how do you explain that?

Ali was a freak of nature?

The Mighty Atom wrote:How do you know Benn was taught all these things, looking at how he fought it's a safe assumption to say he wasn't and you are barking up the wrong tree entirely. The problem many of us have is you are picking Benn not because of his style or ability but rather his date of birth which is very naive of a boxing fan.

What styles weren't around in Langfords day that were in Benns, please give a detailed breakdown with specific details rather than the usual generalisations.

No I'm not.

Or you are because your judging it solely on the fact that having been born some 80 odd years later that he would automatically know more

As i've asked before can you explain which styles weren't around in Langfords day? Also listing some names from the past doesn't validate your opinion, you need to explain what they would do to beat Langford rather than taking the easy way out and saying well he knows more doesn't he which looking at Benn is a questionnable assumption based very little on fact.

Or you are because your judging it solely on the fact that having been born some 80 odd years later that he would automatically know more

No I'm not.

I have given my opinion several times on this very thread. If you think that all I've said is that Benn et al know more, then you plainly haven't read through or understood what I said.

Of course saying Benn would win is a questionable assumption. Saying SL would win is a also a questioning assumption. I have watched footages of SL fighting. I have seen his style and genius broken down. Whilst it may be genius in 1905, was very common in 1935.

azania wrote:

Or you are because your judging it solely on the fact that having been born some 80 odd years later that he would automatically know more

No I'm not.

I have given my opinion several times on this very thread. If you think that all I've said is that Benn et al know more, then you plainly haven't read through or understood what I said.

Of course saying Benn would win is a questionable assumption. Saying SL would win is a also a questioning assumption. I have watched footages of SL fighting. I have seen his style and genius broken down. Whilst it may be genius in 1905, was very common in 1935.

You talking a lot da rudey poo Azania

Where is da footage of Langford ??

You're clueless, hold ya hands up admit this and jog on.

D A C A T

Cat

I posted some on this very thread. Interestingly, you have never seen footage of this guy yet you believe him to be an ATG. Wierd.

Azania there is a difference between choosing the likes of Hagler, Monzon, Cerdan etc as examples because these were all time greats aswell.

Nigel Benn was not an all time great so the idea that he beats Langford equates to saying Langford would only be average today at best.

You might think techniques such as rolling and slipping (Which Benn never proved he ws particulalry adept at) were somehow not around in Langfords day but I assure you this isnt the case. I actually believe they were better at it back then as glove sizes were smaller offering less protection so there was more emphasis on head movement to avoid being punched.

You say:

[b]That prespective boxer has to have a certain level of talent otherwise it wouldbe pointless. If a talented guy waks into a gym but is trained in a limited manner, he will remain a limited fighter regardless of his talent. [b]

This is the key issue and highlights how you cannot just use a general assumption as a blanket. Langford had talent that the vast majority of people today couldnt hold a candle to, Benn included. Even if you gave Benn the best trainer in the world its not going to give him what Langford had.

Boxers are highly variable. As are trainers, as are methods. Its not just a blanket progression.

Arcel knew more after 20 years than he did after 5 years but it doesnt mean he can turn an average fighter into a great. He can improve him sure, but he cant give him talent he doesnt have. The point being that Langford had this in far greater measures than Benn. Graham existed after Arcel so did he know more as a result? Was he better?

Boxers and trainers are far too individualistic to apply set rules and generalisations to them. It seems far more logical to me to go off what we tangibly know rather than to rely on blanket assumptions.

Colonel

OK, perhaps I was too enthusiastic wrt Benn. The point I was making is that SL will always be ranked higher that Monzon, LaMotta, Hagler et al because of his CV and not neccessarily because h2h he would have won. I maintain h2h Benn would stand a better that average chance of beating him convincingly.

My other point being that SL was fighting in an era where training was not as knowledgeable as today. Countering some punches was a novelty. Look at how wide open he was when throwing an uppercut. Look at the obvious and lack of subtlety when feignting. It was highly effective then, but if he threw an uppercut in that manner 25 years later, he would have been countered to pieces and perhaps KOd.

Graham imo was ot better than Arcel. Ray had a wider knowledge having working with a wider variety of boxers and styles and in many cases creating the blueprint for boxers and boxing today.

azania wrote:Colonel

Look at the obvious and lack of subtlety when feignting. It was highly effective then, but if he threw an uppercut in that manner 25 years later, he would have been countered to pieces and perhaps KOd.

In isolation, I could point to thousands of examples in which moderns also look ungainly when throwing a punch. Chris Eubank would be a good example. How did he get on against Benn ?

As to feinting, it is a largely forgotten art, these days.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Colonel

Look at the obvious and lack of subtlety when feignting. It was highly effective then, but if he threw an uppercut in that manner 25 years later, he would have been countered to pieces and perhaps KOd.

In isolation, I could point to thousands of examples in which moderns also look ungainly when throwing a punch. Chris Eubank would be a good example. How did he get on against Benn ?

As to feinting, it is a largely forgotten art, these days.

It wasn't a question of being ungainly windy, it was how wide open he was. I dont think feinting is forgotten at all. You hear the idiot Watt saying that certain boxers need to feignt more in order to get their punches off. But the problem is that many boxers, especially the ones trying to carve a name for themselves fight to please the crown and be flashy which means they leave the subtleties behind in favour of crowd pleasing. But when the stakes are higher, they do what it takes to win.

Many also feignt too much without letting hands go.

Please don't tell me Az is on about Benn standing more than a good chance against Langford? Having just dropped in on this i'm not sure....

Hope you and D4 are happy that you're driving me to drink!

azania wrote:
It wasn't a question of being ungainly windy, it was how wide open he was.

And Eubank wasn't ?

On the issue of feinting, I flat out disagree with you. The great fighters still do it, but for the most part we rarely see it, nowadays.

Eubank looked out of his comfort zone when forced to chace an opponent. He was a counter puncher. But he wasn't ungainly doing either.

I have to disagree with you about feignting there. Even when I boxed, I was taught to feignt (not that I was much good at it). It is common practice and the best boxers are very cute with it.

azania wrote:Eubank looked out of his comfort zone when forced to chace an opponent. He was a counter puncher. But he wasn't ungainly doing either.

I have to disagree with you about feignting there. Even when I boxed, I was taught to feignt (not that I was much good at it). It is common practice and the best boxers are very cute with it.

Yes, the BEST boxers can feint. For the rank and file, however, it is a lost art.

Eubank was frequently falling over his own feet when missing wildly with an overhand right.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Eubank looked out of his comfort zone when forced to chace an opponent. He was a counter puncher. But he wasn't ungainly doing either.

I have to disagree with you about feignting there. Even when I boxed, I was taught to feignt (not that I was much good at it). It is common practice and the best boxers are very cute with it.

Yes, the BEST boxers can feint. For the rank and file, however, it is a lost art.

Eubank was frequently falling over his own feet when missing wildly with an overhand right.

I'd say that most boxers feignt. Some obviously more subtle and better at it that others. SL was very obvious when feignting imo.

Eubank was never at his best when chasing. His overhand right looked like a cricket bowler warming up. But when the opponent was coming at him, he looked very good.

Jack Johnson was far tougher to hit and far more adept at rolling and slipping punches than Vitali Klitschko for instance, who trades on his chin.

I would bet that if I showed you Vitali on rough black and white footage and Johnson on colour high definition tv you would ridicule how open Vitali was and praise the defensive cuteness of Johnson.

azania wrote:Eubank was never at his best when chasing. His overhand right looked like a cricket bowler warming up. But when the opponent was coming at him, he looked very good.

So, you make the distinction and excuse a modern fighter for looking clumsy and technially poor when throwing a punch, because the particular punch in question isn't one of their primary weapons and isn't a key part of their style? That's fair enough.

The problem is, not once have you made the distinction or offered such leeway when discussing Langford or any other fighter from that era. Nor are you likely to. A bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.

I honestly don't understand your point on this and don't think i'm the only one however I may be alone in that?

What does Benn do to beat Langford, you still haven't answered that question

The Mighty Atom wrote:I honestly don't understand your point on this and don't think i'm the only one however I may be alone in that?

What does Benn do to beat Langford, you still haven't answered that question

Hits him, I think.

BALTIMORA wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:I honestly don't understand your point on this and don't think i'm the only one however I may be alone in that?

What does Benn do to beat Langford, you still haven't answered that question

Hits him, I think.

Probably in the head. But maybe the body. Not below the belt - that's cheating.

Perhaps the question we'd all like Azania to answer is HOW does Benn beat Langford?

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Eubank was never at his best when chasing. His overhand right looked like a cricket bowler warming up. But when the opponent was coming at him, he looked very good.

So, you make the distinction and excuse a modern fighter for looking clumsy and technially poor when throwing a punch, because the particular punch in question isn't one of their primary weapons and isn't a key part of their style? That's fair enough.

The problem is, not once have you made the distinction or offered such leeway when discussing Langford or any other fighter from that era. Nor are you likely to. A bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.

All fighters have their strengths and weaknesses. Eubank was never an attacking fighter. But the highlights of SL supposedly showed him at his best, showing his uppercuts, his parrying and slipping jabs, him jabbing and more. Frankly whilst it may have been good in 1905, in 1925 he would have been picked apart. I refer to an example given on another thread, comparing Newton to an A Level physics student. Who is the greater scientist and who probably knows more?

The leeway I give Langford is that he was doing what he was taught, which as boxing as we know it was in its infancy, is not as much as boxers who came later.

Colonial Lion wrote:Jack Johnson was far tougher to hit and far more adept at rolling and slipping punches than Vitali Klitschko for instance, who trades on his chin.

I would bet that if I showed you Vitali on rough black and white footage and Johnson on colour high definition tv you would ridicule how open Vitali was and praise the defensive cuteness of Johnson.

I would still pick Vit to beat Johnson. Johnson had plenty of talent. Much more than Vit. But I would even pick Dempsey to beat him. You can show what you like about Vit, my opinion of him is not very high anyway.