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

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The point is being missed. I would like someone to address my point about Royce Gracie. The point is that in the early years of the 20thC boxing was in its infancy with styles and techniques evolving. It is perfectly understandable that a small guy could challenge and beat the biggest if the smaller guy had better technique. It wouldn't happen in the last 50 years. Especially when moving up to HW. It could only happen it the HW in question is poor. (Ruiz).

Morning, az.

It is you who is missing the point. You know nothing about Langford and so you are in no position to dismiss him. Go watch him and then tell me he didn't have equal or better skills than most of today's lightheavies.

Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

No. I don't have the patience.

What I will do is ask you why you think you know better than Chappie Blackburn, who fought Langford and lived to train Joe Louis.

I'll also refer you to these assessments :

" Langford’s boxing skills were almost unlimited. He could fight at close quarters or a long range. He would attack the head or body with a two-handed barrage of punches that packed power in both fists. He would duck, feint, block, move in, move out, and shift his attack quickly upstairs or down. His timing was excellent. He used jabs, hooks, combinations, wide swings, short chops and mixed his punches beautifully. Also, he was as game as they come with a great capacity for taking punishment."

and :

“Langford had all the attributes of a great fighter, speed, punching power, an amazingly elusive defense, the ability to absorb punishment, and unlimited endurance”.


Joe Jeannette once called Langford “the best all-around heavyweight” and said Sam hit him harder than anyone he ever fought. Harry Wills called Langford the best fighter he ever fought. “Fireman” Jim Flynn, who fought such men as Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Luther McCarty, Ed “Gunboat” Smith, and many others said “the hardest hitter I ever faced was Langford”. Cannon (1978 p 89) quoted Jack Dempsey as saying “Sam probably would have knocked me out”.

Hugh McIntosh, famous promoter of that period, rated Sam Langford as the greatest fighter of the time, even better than Jack Johnson. Grombach (1977 p 51) said Langford was probably the only fighter who could have extended Jack Johnson.

“Dumb” Dan Morgan, famous fight manager, once compared Langford with Joe Louis by saying “Langford, who was a scientific knocker-outer, would crowd Louis, either lead to him or counter him, and take whatever Joe could dish out. I think Sam would finish Joe in about six or seven rounds of real slugging”

Another respected historian, in 1954, wrote “Sam Langford was a great fighter in an age of great fighters. In proportion to his height and weight there never was a greater fighting man. He was not the greatest of fighters but undoubtedly was one of the best”.

But, of course, you know better and this despite the fact that what you know about Langford could be written several times on a postage stamp.

It's pointless discussing this with you because we cannot debate it on the basis of BOXING. It's always evolution, Rolls Roycie, rowing machines, creatine, time machines, moisturizing cream, designer sunglasses, Pelé, Gadaffi, Paul McCartney and Kevin Bacon.

I'd rather discuss boxing.

The point remains I have not dismissed Langford. Combat sport is combat sport where styles evolve. Royce Gracie was considered unbeatable in the early days of MMA. A skinny little guy beating established big guys in various combat disciplines. It couldn't happen today in MMA. Likewise it couldn't happen today in boxing. Skills have moved on too much.

As for what those boxing writers claim, I could reproduce extracts of what some have said about RJJ and it would read as the second coming.

Langford was great in an era of great fighters. But that era had relatively poor boxers and techniques because the rules and styles were still being established and were evolving.

azania wrote:But when boxing became more organised as a sport they would not be considered freaks, but good fighters.

Boxing was pretty well organized when Joe Louis was champ, yet his trainer, who fought Langford, ( and sparred with Jack Johnson, ) regarded Sam as a marvel.

I'll take his word over yours, anytime, and especially since I've seen Langford with my own eyes, have read the newspaper articles of the day and many, many other eyewitness accounts.

Rest assured that if I ever need advice concerning creatine or tube stations in Islington I'll consult you, since I imagine that in these subjects you might actually know what you are talking about.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:But when boxing became more organised as a sport they would not be considered freaks, but good fighters.

Boxing was pretty well organized when Joe Louis was champ, yet his trainer, who fought Langford, ( and sparred with Jack Johnson, ) regarded Sam as a marvel.

I'll take his word over yours, anytime, and especially since I've seen Langford with my own eyes, have read the newspaper articles of the day and many, many other eyewitness accounts.

Rest assured that if I ever need advice concerning creatine or tube stations in Islington I'll consult you, since I imagine that in these subjects you might actually know what you are talking about.

Boxing men are prone to hypebole when discussing fighters. Listen to Roach today and Dundee (Angelo) and they say similar things about certain fighters. Dundee claims SRL was the better fighter than Ali and another guy having a better jab than either of them, with another having relatively quicker hands. I always take what boxing writers say with a pinch of salt.

It is logic to assume that inthe infancy of any sport, those who pioneered it will be judged as great in comparison to those who mastered what they pioneered.

Once again, in no way am I dismissing Langford et al.

azania wrote:Boxing men are prone to hypebole when discussing fighters.

They saw him. You didn't.

Case closed.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Boxing men are prone to hypebole when discussing fighters.

They saw him. You didn't.

Case closed.

Sigh. I think it was manos who on here brought up some quites made by Louis manager or trainer. I cant recall exactly what it was but was posted to show that trainers are prone to hype regardless of whether they saw the other or slept with him.

azania wrote:Sigh. I think it was manos who on here brought up some quites made by Louis manager or trainer. I cant recall exactly what it was but was posted to show that trainers are prone to hype regardless of whether they saw the other or slept with him.

The difference being that manos knows what he's talking about. In the subject of old timers you know approximately zero, yet presume to know better than some of the most respected figures in the history of boxing.

Oh, sorry, I almost forgot :

Sigh, sigh, sigh.

There, now we've both been patronizing.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Sigh. I think it was manos who on here brought up some quites made by Louis manager or trainer. I cant recall exactly what it was but was posted to show that trainers are prone to hype regardless of whether they saw the other or slept with him.

The difference being that manos knows what he's talking about. In the subject of old timers you know approximately zero, yet presume to know better than some of the most respected figures in the history of boxing.

Oh, sorry, I almost forgot :

Sigh, sigh, sigh.

There, now we've both been patronizing.

Ha. The principle still applies. If boxing guys hype up one of their own, it doesn't matter if that boxing guys comes from Mt Olympia or Hackney. I take it all with a pinch of salt. Ali even said Tyson would have KOd him. Do you believe that?

HumanWindmill wrote:There, now we've both been patronizing.

P-a-t-r-o-n-i-s-i-n-g.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There, now we've both been patronizing.

P-a-t-r-o-n-i-s-i-n-g.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm afraid I'm becoming too AmericaniZed, Scott.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:There, now we've both been patronizing.

P-a-t-r-o-n-i-s-i-n-g.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm afraid I'm becoming too AmericaniZed, Scott.

Too many boxing books written by Americans has that effect 8)

azania wrote:Too many boxing books written by Americans has that effect 8)

So we can be assured you won't be using Americanisations then.

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:Too many boxing books written by Americans has that effect 8)

So we can be assured you won't be using Americanisations then.

I cant assure you on that seeing as I'm married to one.

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:Too many boxing books written by Americans has that effect 8)

So we can be assured you won't be using Americanisations then.

I cant assure you on that seeing as I'm married to one.

Miss. TRUSS?

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

azania wrote:Too many boxing books written by Americans has that effect 8)

So we can be assured you won't be using Americanisations then.

I cant assure you on that seeing as I'm married to one.

Miss. TRUSS?

azania wrote:Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

I'd say that telling us all that a fighter's (a fighter who you know nothing about, no less) achievements, which have yet to be replicated regardless of eras or standard of boxing, shouldn't be celebrated that much because older generations, in your eyes, can't compete with today's incredible slicksters and technicians such as Sultan Ibragimov, Antonio Margarito and Mickey Ward, as well as having the smugness to basically imply that you are somehow in a position to make a better assessment of him than those who actually knew something about him, who actually saw him and who actually fought him is being pretty dismissive. If you can't see that, then you are seriously beyond help.

The top 10 list is OK. Everyone after that list is awful. Hopkins top 20? Please - that has to be a bad joke. Floyd ahead of Manny? Again some kind of joke. Floyd top 20? Cmon people - the sport wasn't invented in 1990! Look beyond the colour TVs and do some reading to find out what an all time great champion would look like.

It damn sure doesn't look like any of those muppets.

BTW az - I too, find it hard to conceive how such a light man in Langford could possibly compete at Heavyweight. I see it as an absolute testament to his skills and ability - I am sure you will agree.

When a man who started his career at LMW, can move up to MW, then SMW, then get very very fat and move up to CW and then HW, then get extremely fat and extremely old and continue being competitive into his 40s - that says more to me about the state of boxing than his skills.

So are things really better today than in 1910? Would Toney even be competitive back then?

Lets do a transplant.

An open question, please answer below:

Following matchups, pick a winner...

Greb v Martinez
Ketchel v Pavlik
Johnson v Haye/Chagaev/Ibragimov/Liakhovich
Louis v Klitschko (either)
Armstrong v Mayweather
JMM v Leonard (B)
Pacquiao v Wilde
Pacquiao v Herman
Pacquiao v Driscoll
Pacquiao v Canzoneri
Pascal v Langford

Answers on a postcard...

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

I'd say that telling us all that a fighter's (a fighter who you know nothing about, no less) achievements, which have yet to be replicated regardless of eras or standard of boxing, shouldn't be celebrated that much because older generations, in your eyes, can't compete with today's incredible slicksters and technicians such as Sultan Ibragimov, Antonio Margarito and Mickey Ward, as well as having the smugness to basically imply that you are somehow in a position to make a better assessment of him than those who actually knew something about him, who actually saw him and who actually fought him is being pretty dismissive. If you can't see that, then you are seriously beyond help.

What I am saying is to put his achievements into context. The context being that boxing was in its infancy. I take it Marg, Sultan and Ward are the only boxers to emerge since Langford then?

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

I'd say that telling us all that a fighter's (a fighter who you know nothing about, no less) achievements, which have yet to be replicated regardless of eras or standard of boxing, shouldn't be celebrated that much because older generations, in your eyes, can't compete with today's incredible slicksters and technicians such as Sultan Ibragimov, Antonio Margarito and Mickey Ward, as well as having the smugness to basically imply that you are somehow in a position to make a better assessment of him than those who actually knew something about him, who actually saw him and who actually fought him is being pretty dismissive. If you can't see that, then you are seriously beyond help.

What I am saying is to put his achievements into context. The context being that boxing was in its infancy. I take it Marg, Sultan and Ward are the only boxers to emerge since Langford then?

Boxing was NOT in its infancy. It dates back, at the very least, to the Ancient Greeks.

For Heaven's sake go and watch Langford fight. THAT is context, not your obsessive insistence that anything prewar must, by definition, be rubbish.

Why don't you do us all a favour and stick to debating what you know, rather than ruining threads which enthusiasts of the history of the sport enjoy ? If you disagreed on the basis of BOXING it would be fun to debate with you, but you, by your own admission, know zilch about these guys. Where, then, are the grounds for debate ?

oxring wrote:The top 10 list is OK. Everyone after that list is awful. Hopkins top 20? Please - that has to be a bad joke. Floyd ahead of Manny? Again some kind of joke. Floyd top 20? Cmon people - the sport wasn't invented in 1990! Look beyond the colour TVs and do some reading to find out what an all time great champion would look like.

It damn sure doesn't look like any of those muppets.

BTW az - I too, find it hard to conceive how such a light man in Langford could possibly compete at Heavyweight. I see it as an absolute testament to his skills and ability - I am sure you will agree.

When a man who started his career at LMW, can move up to MW, then SMW, then get very very fat and move up to CW and then HW, then get extremely fat and extremely old and continue being competitive into his 40s - that says more to me about the state of boxing than his skills.

So are things really better today than in 1910? Would Toney even be competitive back then?

Lets do a transplant.

An open question, please answer below:

Following matchups, pick a winner...

Greb v Martinez
Ketchel v Pavlik
Johnson v Haye/Chagaev/Ibragimov/Liakhovich
Louis v Klitschko (either)
Armstrong v Mayweather
JMM v Leonard (B)
Pacquiao v Wilde
Pacquiao v Herman
Pacquiao v Driscoll
Pacquiao v Canzoneri
Pascal v Langford

Answers on a postcard...

Yes it is testament to his abilities, but also testament to the state of boxing that a lightweight (even a MW) can seriously be competitive against HWs - and that includes RJJ). RJJ was brilliant, but do you seriously think he would consider fighting Tyson when Tyson was supreme? Answer on the back of a stamp please.

As for Toney, once again you will not get any argument from me there. It shows up the HW division big time. I reckon you could dig up Rocky's corpse and it would stand a chance of being a HW contender today. Skills may have evolved, but turd still stinks like turd no matter what era its dropped.

Johnson vs Haye. I'd pick Haye in a H2H anyday.

Armstrong vs Floyd. I'd pick Armstrong if transplanted and fighting at LWW.

Louis vs Klits - Klits.

Paq vs those names - Paq

I'd pick Benny over JMM.

Langford over Pascal.

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Can you point out where I have dismissed him?

I'd say that telling us all that a fighter's (a fighter who you know nothing about, no less) achievements, which have yet to be replicated regardless of eras or standard of boxing, shouldn't be celebrated that much because older generations, in your eyes, can't compete with today's incredible slicksters and technicians such as Sultan Ibragimov, Antonio Margarito and Mickey Ward, as well as having the smugness to basically imply that you are somehow in a position to make a better assessment of him than those who actually knew something about him, who actually saw him and who actually fought him is being pretty dismissive. If you can't see that, then you are seriously beyond help.

What I am saying is to put his achievements into context. The context being that boxing was in its infancy. I take it Marg, Sultan and Ward are the only boxers to emerge since Langford then?

Boxing was NOT in its infancy. It dates back, at the very least, to the Ancient Greeks.

For Heaven's sake go and watch Langford fight. THAT is context, not your obsessive insistence that anything prewar must, by definition, be rubbish.

Why don't you do us all a favour and stick to debating what you know, rather than ruining threads which enthusiasts of the history of the sport enjoy ? If you disagreed on the basis of BOXING it would be fun to debate with you, but you, by your own admission, know zilch about these guys. Where, then, are the grounds for debate ?

I didn't think the marquis of Queensbury was that old.

Mr Windy, it is logical and not a leap in faith to believe that things have improved greately. Fights are no longer 99 rounds. Boxers dont drink booze to get them up for a fight and between rounds etc. You cannot compare a Model T to a Ferrari. But without a model t, there may not have been a ferrari.

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

azania wrote:but also testament to the state of boxing that a lightweight (even a MW) can seriously be competitive against HWs

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.


Would ten times be enough ?

LIGHTHEAVY ( ISH ) 180lb. - just under thirteen stones - approximately 80kg. - bigger than middleweight - smaller than heavyweight - NOT lightweight.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:but also testament to the state of boxing that a lightweight (even a MW) can seriously be competitive against HWs

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.

Langford wasn't a lightweight, but rather he started out as one. Robinson started as a featherweight. Mature Langford weighed around 180.


Would ten times be enough ?

LIGHTHEAVY ( ISH ) 180lb. - just under thirteen stones - approximately 80kg. - bigger than middleweight - smaller than heavyweight - NOT lightweight.

Sorry can you repeat that please.

azania wrote:Mr Windy, it is logical and not a leap in faith to believe that things have improved greately.

Mr azania, it is logical to assume that there are always exceptions. Do we have a featherweight, today, to beat Pep, for example ?

It is NOT logical that somebody who knows naff all about Langford would dismiss the opinions of a man who fought him, sparred with Jack Johnson, and trained Joe Louis.

No, Sir. Not logical at all. Merely unbelievably arrogant.

HumanWindmill wrote:Do we have a featherweight, today, to beat Pep, for example ?

Saddler aside who was all wrong for Pep and ripped his arm out of its socket their hasn't been anyone else of any era I would pick to beat Pep.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Mr Windy, it is logical and not a leap in faith to believe that things have improved greately.

Mr azania, it is logical to assume that there are always exceptions. Do we have a featherweight, today, to beat Pep, for example ?

It is NOT logical that somebody who knows naff all about Langford would dismiss the opinions of a man who fought him, sparred with Jack Johnson, and trained Joe Louis.

No, Sir. Not logical at all. Merely unbelievably arrogant.

Pep would decision all FWs today. No argument from e. I may rate Sadler higher, but it doesn't mean I dont rate Pep.

The time of Langford was when boxing was relatively new with styles developing etc. He may have been a freak of nature, but today he would be considered good.

azania wrote:The time of Langford was when boxing was relatively new with styles developing etc. He may have been a freak of nature, but today he would be considered good.

Well, Mr azania, thank you, Sir, for your in depth and authoritative analysis of Mr Langford. All I can say is, thank Heavens above that we have your expertise in the matter. Where would we be without yiour encyclopaedic knowledge of the Boston Tar Baby and his style ? Why, good Sir, you must have seen SO many of his fights !

Verily, Mr azania, Sire, I applaud thee from the bottom of my creatine bottle !

azania wrote:Pep would decision all FWs today. No argument from e. I may rate Sadler higher, but it doesn't mean I dont rate Pep.

Who would you pick of any era to get the better of Pep in a 3-5 fight series?

Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The time of Langford was when boxing was relatively new with styles developing etc. He may have been a freak of nature, but today he would be considered good.

Well, Mr azania, thank you, Sir, for your in depth and authoritative analysis of Mr Langford. All I can say is, thank Heavens above that we have your expertise in the matter. Where would we be without yiour encyclopaedic knowledge of the Boston Tar Baby and his style ? Why, good Sir, you must have seen SO many of his fights !

Verily, Mr azania, Sire, I applaud thee from the bottom of my creatine bottle !

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

Good luck with that, Chris.

I suspect you're in for a long afternoon. Model T Fords will be the salient point of discussion, along with a Woodrow Wilson v Bill Clinton showdown.

Mr az is our newly appointed Langford correspondent, doncha know ?

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Pep would decision all FWs today. No argument from e. I may rate Sadler higher, but it doesn't mean I dont rate Pep.

Who would you pick of any era to get the better of Pep in a 3-5 fight series?

I'd go for Azumah and Sal Sanchez.

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

Why are you going on about a boxer being technically slick? Transport Langford with his skillset then and he wouldn't stand much of a chance imo. But the ability is there. If he were trained with all the accumulated knowledge of the different styles, studied fighters and their strength/weakesses then he would beat Benn.

Benn would be trained with the accumulated knowledge of the style of Langford whereas Langford probably would not know what Benn was capable of and how to counter what he did. (No you-tube ). Beating Fireman Sam and Postman Pat does not make you a world beater. Beating a few road sweepers and gaining knowledge in how to counter styles makes Benn more effective.

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

Good luck with that, Chris.

I suspect you're in for a long afternoon. Model T Fords will be the salient point of discussion, along with a Woodrow Wilson v Bill Clinton showdown.

Mr az is our newly appointed Langford correspondent, doncha know ?

Windy, I love your sense of humour.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

Good luck with that, Chris.

I suspect you're in for a long afternoon. Model T Fords will be the salient point of discussion, along with a Woodrow Wilson v Bill Clinton showdown.

Mr az is our newly appointed Langford correspondent, doncha know ?

Windy, I love your sense of humour.

Why, thank you, Son of Sam, but how did you know I was joking ?

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

Why are you going on about a boxer being technically slick?

Are you being serious with that question? It's YOU who is always reminding us that boxers in Langford's day were all of basic technique and little skill, whereas fighters from latter generations are more refined, complete and with a higher, more evolved level of skill. Presumably then, using your logic, Benn was a more technical and skillful fighter than Langford? If that's not what you're saying, then your whole argument is shown up to be a load of cobblers, and you're basically admitting that Benn 'beats' Langford simply because he emerged later, which is frankly ridiculous.

So as I already asked - what is it about Nigel Benn and his skills which put him so far ahead of Langford?

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

Now you are using your words and attributing them to me.

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

Now you are using your words and attributing them to me.

Might as well, az.

Your own don't make any sense.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Azania, I see you pick Nigel Benn to beat Langford. As you're so obsessed with how complete and technical all fighters are in modern times as opposed to their older counterparts, please fill me in; what, exactly, was so technical and slick about Nigel Benn, particularly in comparison to Langford? What technical wizardry did he have that the Boston Tar Baby didn't?

Why are you going on about a boxer being technically slick?

Are you being serious with that question? It's YOU who is always reminding us that boxers in Langford's day were all of basic technique and little skill, whereas fighters from latter generations are more refined, complete and with a higher, more evolved level of skill. Presumably then, using your logic, Benn was a more technical and skillful fighter than Langford? If that's not what you're saying, then your whole argument is shown up to be a load of cobblers, and you're basically admitting that Benn 'beats' Langford simply because he emerged later, which is frankly ridiculous.

So as I already asked - what is it about Nigel Benn and his skills which put him so far ahead of Langford?

You didn't say skill. You said slick and that is what I am referring to. Now you shift things and say skill.

But imo, Benn knows too much for Langford. I said their techniques were basic. I haven't said they were unnskilled.

Still waiting for someone to comment on my Royce Gracie example

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

Now you are using your words and attributing them to me.

Might as well, az.

Your own don't make any sense.

Tut tut windy. Where have I mentioned a quantum leap?

Boxers post Langford have learned from his blueprint and improved on it. Who did Langford,Fitz learn from? Did Fitz learn how to counter a jab from hitting the anvil?

azania wrote:Still waiting for someone to comment on my Royce Gracie example

Perhaps if you posted it on the correct forum it would elicit a response.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Still waiting for someone to comment on my Royce Gracie example

Perhaps if you posted it on the correct forum it would elicit a response.

The principle remains the same. A sport where techniques and styles are constantly developing. Unless you think that boxing has stood still from the times that fitz recognised that gloves were not only for winter.

azania wrote:Who did Langford,Fitz learn from? Did Fitz learn how to counter a jab from hitting the anvil?

Dunno, where did Mickey Ward learn it from ? How about the super slick skills of Valuev ? Wonder where he learned such exquisite ability ?

On the other hand, of course, maybe Langford learned it from watching the fighters of the day. You wouldn't know, of course, since you never have.

azania wrote:The principle remains the same. A sport where techniques and styles are constantly developing. Unless you think that boxing has stood still from the times that fitz recognised that gloves were not only for winter.

Again, today's heavies are living proof that skills improve, aren't they ?

Yeah, really.

Can you use a sword, by the way ? I mean, the metal variety, as opposed to your chosen form of relaxation.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Who did Langford,Fitz learn from? Did Fitz learn how to counter a jab from hitting the anvil?

Dunno, where did Mickey Ward learn it from ? How about the super slick skills of Valuev ? Wonder where he learned such exquisite ability ?

On the other hand, of course, maybe Langford learned it from watching the fighters of the day. You wouldn't know, of course, since you never have.

Haha. Valuev would also beat Langford. But who is referring to slick skills? You guys are losing the plot. Stay focussed please.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:The principle remains the same. A sport where techniques and styles are constantly developing. Unless you think that boxing has stood still from the times that fitz recognised that gloves were not only for winter.

Again, today's heavies are living proof that skills improve, aren't they ?

Yeah, really.

Can you use a sword, by the way ? I mean, the metal variety, as opposed to your chosen form of relaxation.

Today's heavies are not up to much. Outside f the top 3, there's no one else. But whatis your point?

Why use a sword when I can use a gun? Things have moved on.

azania wrote:You guys are losing the plot. Stay focussed please.

Watch some fights, please.

Learn something about boxing at the time instead of trotting out ridiculous, ill - informed soundbites, please.

azania wrote:

Colonial Lion wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:

azania wrote:Langford over Pascal.

What about Langford v Bhop Pascal isn't that good imo.

Which version of Bhop? The one who reigned at MW? I'd pick him. I'd pick Hagler, SRL, SRR, Hearns, RJJ, Toney, Monzon, Tiger, Eubank, MacCallum, Benn, Watson and many more over Langford (if he were transplanted to this era and with his skillset). Train him for 6 months and my results would be different.

It doesnt say much for these supposed quantum leaps in boxing over the eras if they can be learned in 6 months.

Now you are using your words and attributing them to me.

I have read posts from you in the past saying that scientific/training/nutrition advancements made sometime in the 70s caused a leap forward in boxing and I have read countless comments from you indicating boxing from earlier eras was crude and underdeveloped. Comments like Fitzsimmons was a better blacksmith than a boxer for instance. Now are you telling me that all these advancements over the eras that you argue so passionately to exist can be offset by a simple 6 months training in modern context to sufficiently alter a fighter from a long past era?