how would langford /dempsey gone

[Lucas Machine]

your thoughts?

Dempsey was too swift, fleet, for a mud goblin like Langford. I believe Langford would have a punchers chance which limits his options against a fighter like Dempsey.

[ShoulderRoll]

Dempsey was too swift, fleet, for a mud goblin like Langford.

Mud goblin?

I hope someone doesn't report you for racism.

[StarshipTrooper]

Mud goblin?

I hope someone doesn't report you for racism.

I already did.

Poet

[rightsideup]

Ha. I just purchased a book about Langford on Kindle. Looking forward to reading it and having more ammo to repudiate these slights against him.

let us know how you like or dislike the book

[rightsideup]

"I think Sam Langford was the greatest fighter we ever had. In 1916 I came here and had a couple of fights and won them. I was managed by a fellow named John the Barber. After winning these two fights he said, "I got a good fight for you." I said, "Who is it?" He says, "Sam Langford." I said, "Not me! Goodbye!"

He was a great fighter and I didn't have the experience to fight a man like that. He was a hell of a puncher, never been licked, so why should I get my brains knocked out for nothing? Even at my best I don't know whether I could lick him or not. He was a good man, good puncher, rough, tough.'"
--Jack Dempsey


“The hell I feared no man. There was one man I wouldn't fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford.”
--Jack Dempsey

I wonder if he was afraid of Langford because of reputation or did he actually see sam in action.

[Scott9945]

let us know how you like or dislike the book

I sure will, but it may be awhile. I'm still reading a Sonny Liston bio and the Langford book is 440 pages.

[louis54]

i agree with raspitin that pound 4 pound langford may have been better than almost anyone, but he would get koed by dempsey and annilated by others as well. he was the best light heavyweight ever in my opinon, but 5 6 is just way too short to deal with dempsey and others. its just too much to ask of langford.

[SBleeder]

i agree with raspitin that pound 4 pound langford may have been better than almost anyone, but he would get koed by dempsey and annilated by others as well. he was the best light heavyweight ever in my opinon, but 5 6 is just way too short to deal with dempsey and others. its just too much to ask of langford.

Langford gives up as much height to Dempsey as Frazier did to Ali. Height isn't all that important.

I have Dempsey winning a tough, long fight, possibly by late stoppage, but the height thing is pretty unimportant.

[danthepoetman]

This is one of the difficult fight to imagine because these two, despite not belongning to such distant times belongs nonetheless to different era in boxing. Boxing in the 45 rounds championship fights era was quite different from what it became a bit later on, with shorter championship fights. Fighters like Langford and Johnson would grab and hold, throw punches, then grab again, take some distance, throw punches than grab again, etc. Fights were slow, long, very well paced but extenuating endurance contests. Boxing was then almost halfway wrestling standing up as it was throwing punches. With such a style, Langford, even being short, shows on the films we have that he was remarkable at throwing short, compact shots on the inside during the grabbing sessions. Very, very efficient. In his time, his technique was flawless, I'm sure.
But Dempsey has come in an era of much shorter championship fights. He came to represent the new breed of fighters who came at you with non-stop furious attacks. He thus came to represent, as the heavyweight king, the new, post industrial might of the US! His very style made him a social figure. With Dempsey, a whole new chapter in boxing seems to have been open -even if he's not the creator of this new style, and even if other fighters would be known for the same in his time, Greb, Walker...
So I find it particularly difficult to envision a fight between a defensive wizard and inside fighter such as Langford (or Johnson) with a devastating machine such as Dempsey. The question is: could a young Langford get past the first 7, 8, 10 rounds to take Dempsey to a place where his energy spending would have cost him dearly? Rspen brought great arguments to the table, but I'm not sure the KO defeat to Wills can be counted as one indeed. Langford was not himself anymore and Wills was a young fighter belongning to this new era. So the question is, once again, is it a 45 rounder or a 10? I'd give it to Dempsey in his era, and I tend to think that in his era, Langford would have been very dangerous to an experienced Dempsey, who would have needed to get him out of there early; Langford would have known this, and would have come out with all the tricks in the book to extend the Manassa Mauler to tired, late rounds.
I'm sure everyone knows this, but Langford is one of the best fighters of all times pound for pound. He joins Hollyfield and E. Charles, for instance, as a heavyweight who would rate better than most heavyweight champions as a pound for pounder.
My humble take on it.

[louis54]

good post but dempsey could adjust too- part of his greatness was an all purpose style and skill set. if the match were for 45 rounds, dempsey could obviously adjust to a slower more measured pace. dempsey could box as well as weardown. both had tricks up their sleeves. i go for dempsey by ko. i still say no 5 6 inch man ever made would have defeated dempsey hed catch him coming in and he worked well indide. ive seen the films and i cant think of one thing langford was better at than dempsey, not one.