how would langford /dempsey gone

[Anthony342]

Or at the very least, fighting way past prime.

[Greatest1942]

So then Langford Wills would essentially be something like Ali-Holmes?

They fought near their primes, Sam had just stepped out of it and Willis into it, and the results were pretty evenly locked, but Sam rapidly gained weight and even before he was blind he was already out of shape, the results showed. He could beat good heavies but struggled against very good ones like Willis...
Sam's weigh balloned to 200 lbs and for his build it was way overweight. He did Ko willis cold twice though

[Rspen46]

My Agenda is to put a logical end to people propping up fighters to heights they do not belong in, Langford was good many divisions before it was popular, that's why everyone thinks he is so awesome, yes awesome fighter, but does not dominate the Hw's at all, and gans had something like the Flu bug at that time, he was over it in a week or so, so winning fights later he was over being sick, so that comment makes no difference, Pryor. I lived in cinci, I trained at both his downtown gyms, hung out with his people, heard the inside talk, saw all but 1 Pro fight in person and many of his Amateur bouts, he could not take a big Punch, that's why they never let him fight a big power guy, and that's why they filled him up with the right drugs to keep him standing in some fights, he hit hard with both hands, was fast, aggressive and a great fighter to watch, he was exciting, but had no balance, no defense, no brains, so therefore ZERO Ring Generalship against even the dumbest fighters, he turned down a fight with Leonard twice, ignored duran's offer till it expired and he move dup to WW, Great, NO, top 10 JWW Yes, no agenda, truthful facts, good hard solid facts, that you don't seem to be able to handle for some reason, and you Langford and pryor guys are just like the Tyson ones, no matter what logical argument is made, you will hang on to them for dear life, Pryor probably was the worst one overall, he fought no one in their Prime that was worth anything in his whole career, and all you people do is make excuses for these guys, they were blind, they got on drugs and ruined their career, they didn't train,t hey didn't do this or that, that's bull, great fighters don't need or have excuses, or need anyone to defend them, if you have to defend and makes excuses, that right there is your 1st sign you may be wrong.

[QueensburyRules]

My Agenda is to put a logical end to people propping up fighters to heights they do not belong in, Langford was good many divisions before it was popular, that's why everyone thinks he is so awesome, yes awesome fighter, but does not dominate the Hw's at all, and gans had something like the Flu bug at that time, he was over it in a week or so, so winning fights later he was over being sick, so that comment makes no difference, Pryor. I lived in cinci, I trained at both his downtown gyms, hung out with his people, heard the inside talk, saw all but 1 Pro fight in person and many of his Amateur bouts, he could not take a big Punch, that's why they never let him fight a big power guy, and that's why they filled him up with the right drugs to keep him standing in some fights, he hit hard with both hands, was fast, aggressive and a great fighter to watch, he was exciting, but had no balance, no defense, no brains, so therefore ZERO Ring Generalship against even the dumbest fighters, he turned down a fight with Leonard twice, ignored duran's offer till it expired and he move dup to WW, Great, NO, top 10 JWW Yes, no agenda, truthful facts, good hard solid facts, that you don't seem to be able to handle for some reason, and you Langford and pryor guys are just like the Tyson ones, no matter what logical argument is made, you will hang on to them for dear life, Pryor probably was the worst one overall, he fought no one in their Prime that was worth anything in his whole career, and all you people do is make excuses for these guys, they were blind, they got on drugs and ruined their career, they didn't train,t hey didn't do this or that, that's bull, great fighters don't need or have excuses, or need anyone to defend them, if you have to defend and makes excuses, that right there is your 1st sign you may be wrong.

- -You being here is the final word that you are dead wrong.

[jack p]

The 21 year old Dempsey who refused the Langford fight was not the Dempsey who 3 years later fought Willard.
But was a 21 year old kid.
Who is sleeping in Central Park.
And the only food he is getting is the food they bring out in during happy hour. He is buying a nickle beer and eating as fast as he can. Stuffing his pockets when the bartender is not looking before the bartender figures he ate his nickles worth and 86s him.
The reason Reisler wanted that fight was because as Langfords manager he would get to rob Langford to
As well as Dempsey who ended up receiving 30 dollars for the Johnson fight when Dempsey was promised 300.

Reisler wanted Dempsey to fight Frank Moran to.
Reisler had no qualms about ruining Dempseys career over a payday.
Langford was still dangerous this was around the time Langford knocked out Kid Norfolk in 2 rounds.

Dempsey sensed this and Dempsey at age 21 sensed a mismatch.
Dempsey turning down this fight when he was years away from his prime.
In a highly weakened state due to his diet. As well as living situation
He did not have the support of a manager who believed in him and could give him the confidence he needed
He was not the Dempsey who had all these things when he fought Willard.
The Dempsey that fought Willard was over the top good. As Ray Arcel said
"The night he fought Willard for the title .?? "Who was better then that"??

[jack p]

]I agree Louis, if Langford was as great a fighter as many claim, he would not have lost so many times to Will's, Mcvey & Jeanette, all 3 very good in their own right, but how good, we will never know for sure, Will's beat Langford nearly 10x so people for Sam, cry about being past his prime, well during those 10 losses to Will's, Langford was beating a lot of other good fighters, so I disagree he was past his prime, Will's was beaten by P. Uzcudun, again they cry Will's past prime, so what, he was ranked #1 & beating other good fighters, so not so past prime to me, Langford was short with long arms, Dempsey swarms him & Ko's him at some point fairly early, Langford's best weight's to me were lower than HW, at MW, I would take Bob Fitz to beat him, and he most likely would not have beaten, LW Gans if Gans did not travel ovenight & fight him the next day, sick, after having a rough fight the previous night, & Gans won the early rounds in that bought outboxing Langford until he tired, he would not have tired, if he had, plenty of rest & no grueling fight the night before, Dempey Ko's him, Tunney either Tko's him or decision's him I wished he had fought Uzcudun as he may have had a shot at winning, Sam great at lower weights but he can't beat the top 10 Hws of all time none of them, maybe not even the top 15 & he would have it tough against the top 20[/QUOTE]



Also Fulton easily beat Sam and Dempsey knocked out Fulton in around 23 seconds. I think Langfords height or lack of it is a stumbling block when he faces anyone over 6ft.
I think Langfords extraordinary reach is the only is the one thing that offset his short stature but only to a point. He is still at a disadvantage when going against someone a head taller.
Unlike Dempsey who feasted on big men. One of Mike Tysons sparring partners told Tyson that "He" referring to himself could beat Dempsey.
Tysons reply was " You need to remember"
"Jack Dempsey knocked out a lot of big Mother F***ers!!

[jack p]

And ohh according to a common opponent Sam had a chance definitely :-

"Langford versus Dempsey, both in their prime would have been bad news for Dempsey. He could be hit easily with a right hand and if anybody had a right hand it was 'The Tar Baby.'"
-- Gunboat Smith, in a 1942 article in Fight Stories

While its obvious from Dempsey's films that a perfectly timed straight right was one of the best punches to nail Dempsey with. Especially to get him while he is coming in
Being easily hit with a right hand and being hit cleanly with a right hand on the chin are two different things.
Tunney stated in twenty rounds he could not land cleanly on Dempsey's chin as Dempsey kept it buried close to his chest
Dempsey's chin was rock solid to.
Carpentier broke his hand landing on Dempsey's chin.. For someone that was "Susceptible to a right hand punch"
Other then the KO loss which was an obvious dive. Dempsey never suffered a KO loss.
I don't recall him being knocked down to often for someone supposedly "easy to hit with a right"
One of the reasons Nat Fleischer picked Dempsey to beat Louis was Dempsey's ability to take a punch . Personally i think he was more susceptible to a perfectly timed uppercut. I think an uppercut was the best punch to use against his rushes

[billeau2]

]I agree Louis, if Langford was as great a fighter as many claim, he would not have lost so many times to Will's, Mcvey & Jeanette, all 3 very good in their own right, but how good, we will never know for sure, Will's beat Langford nearly 10x so people for Sam, cry about being past his prime, well during those 10 losses to Will's, Langford was beating a lot of other good fighters, so I disagree he was past his prime, Will's was beaten by P. Uzcudun, again they cry Will's past prime, so what, he was ranked #1 & beating other good fighters, so not so past prime to me, Langford was short with long arms, Dempsey swarms him & Ko's him at some point fairly early, Langford's best weight's to me were lower than HW, at MW, I would take Bob Fitz to beat him, and he most likely would not have beaten, LW Gans if Gans did not travel ovenight & fight him the next day, sick, after having a rough fight the previous night, & Gans won the early rounds in that bought outboxing Langford until he tired, he would not have tired, if he had, plenty of rest & no grueling fight the night before, Dempey Ko's him, Tunney either Tko's him or decision's him I wished he had fought Uzcudun as he may have had a shot at winning, Sam great at lower weights but he can't beat the top 10 Hws of all time none of them, maybe not even the top 15 & he would have it tough against the top 20

There is at times in this section a flavor of the month... I think Sam is it right now along with a brewing Dempsey contraversy. You have posted numerous times, deconstructing suppositions in a constructive and intelligent manner, I applaud you. Its hard for people to look at these fighters and just understand that they had warts, they could be supermen, and everything else in between lol.

When Langsford fought boxing was more in tune with real combat. Real problems like hands breaking, getting really harmed, being able to tie up hands in the grapple were all real concerns. Fighters did not think so much in terms of their record... heck would we? if we had two fights in a week? Or would we want to make it through to fight another day, and give a good accounting of oneself.

So Langsford, like a lot of men, had to fight guys who were big and strong. Against Wills for example. One can imagine the last thing on his mind was winning a points decision lol. Regarding a 21 year old Dempsey, it makes perfect sense, for the times, that his concern would be his ability to make it through a fight with a guy who could cause him serious problems.

Great analysis as always.

[Rusty Tromboni]

This isn't Boxing. It's gay ****: Dempsey via violent rape.

Dempsey struggled with movers. Not guys imitating punching bags.

[QueensburyRules]

Dempsey struggled with movers. Not guys imitating punching bags.

- -Carpentier was a clever mover with a great rt hand. Tommy Gibbons exc boxer moved all over the ring to no avail.

You imitating posting outta moms basement?