How good was Sam Langford?

[Bundana]

No. Not genetics. Rather training and toughness achieved through harder upbringing and and generally tougher times.

What do you think Bundana? You are one of the most knowledgeable posters I know. And what is your opinion on Langford, which after all is the threads subject?

Today boxers are of course not required to go 45 rounds - but if they were, I don't see any reason, why they wouldn't do just as well as the old-timers, endurance-wise.

As for Langford... well, from the little (unfortunately!) footage we have, I'll have to say, he impresses me more than any other pre-1920 boxer! Hands a bit low, but kind of a modern stance (as opposed to the old lean-back stance, you often see in that era), which allows him to strike whenever he sees an opening. And instead of just following opponents around the ring, he's really good at cutting them off - like prime Foreman used to do (and GGG today). Very impressive fighter - who looks (to me, anyway), like he was decades ahead of his time!

[Humean]

Id say it is highly unlikely that the best thatcher of today is better than the best thatcher of the 19th century. And that's what you say! Why? And how? What kind of Logic is behind that?
Point is that if a 45 round fight was as fastpaced as the fights of today, some 20 round or 15 round fights would also be that.

And yes there is film of the full Nelson-Wolgast fight. A little bonusinfo: Nelson hated that fight so much, that he stole the film from a cinema that was about to show it. He went to court for grand larceny I think, but was acquitted by reasons of insanity (not totally sure of that either though. Its been a while since i read the story.).

Why is it unlikely? Fewer number of great thatchers certainly as these skills are not so much in demand but some could certainly be as good. Maybe you have knowledge of why that is unlikely? Such as hours working developing such skills over a long period of time in as likely today? I'm really not sure what else to say about the point of population growth likely increasing skills. OK here is a different way to look at it, imagine you were able to pick the most beautiful woman in the world to be your wife. The world consists of only two societies other than your own and you have to pick from one of those two societies. You know absolutely nothing about either of those two societies other than their respective populations. Country A has a population of 50 million and country B of 100 million, which country do you think is more likely to have the most beautiful woman?

I think it stands to reason that a typical 45 round fight will be slower paced than a typical 12-15 round fight.

Do you have a copy of the fight?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I cant believe we have a thread about thatchers

[Humean]

you missed the point and I was talking about all sports, you don't have any proof they have all improved only your opinion. Even if they have it doesn't mean that boxing has, that's conjecture.

Plenty of sports have very clear objective standards that show that their sports have improved over time, so in those cases it is purely factual that the best athletes/sportsmen in their sports are better than previous generations. The rest is conjecture, a conjecture is not false simply because it is conjecture.

That's not reason or evidence, and it shows you clearly don't know what you're talking about. There is roughly a third of the fighters today than there was in 1950's and in the 1920's there were more fighters in NYC than there are today. Try again...

I didn't disagree that there are less boxers today in America compared to previous periods. Where is your source for the total number of fighters being less today than in the 1950s or whenever? You do realize that NYC does not constitute the entire world right?

Yes it is absolutely ******ed and illogical and I have seen posters claim this all the time so I will copy and paste my usual response:

For idiots who point to better records in athletics like sprinting/high jump etc that bears no comparison to boxing. Relatively conservative movements/limited technique where you're trying to beat a record in which opponents are irrelevant is going to improve over time (objectively), is absolutely different to a range of dynamic movements and creativity exhibited over a scheduled duration in which the goal is to outpoint an unpredictable opponent, not to mention its a hugely subjective contest.

I remember you posting this before when we argued a few months back, it was as false then as it is now. In plenty of athletic events the opponents are not irrelevant. The records have improved in part because athletes are physiologically better than they were in previous generations. Boxing is not totally immune to those changes. Maybe you should look in the mirror some time before calling other people idiots.

[Humean]

No. Not genetics. Rather training and toughness achieved through harder upbringing and and generally tougher times.

What do you think Bundana? You are one of the most knowledgeable posters I know. And what is your opinion on Langford, which after all is the threads subject?

This is surely a bad argument, the training is a lot better today than it was then. Also this toughness you speak is more genetically contingent than I think your argument suggests. Indeed stressful environments are more likely to produce mental problems than it is to toughen ones mental fortitude. At any rate there are boxers today from environments as comparative or far poorer and tougher than most American or Danish boxers in even the early decades of the 20th century.

[Ben Bolt]

While on the subject Langford: “Whether the bout actually recorded thirty-eight knockdowns or not is really irrelevant because something truly special transpired that evening in Paris a hundred years ago between Joe Jeannette and Sam McVey.”

Spoiled as we might be in today’s Western world, taking a lot of things for granted, you just have to admire the people of yesterday who really had to fight for their livelihood.

http://www.xlfights.com/Home/Entries..._17,_1909.html

[RubenSonny]

Plenty of sports have very clear objective standards that show that their sports have improved over time, so in those cases it is purely factual that the best athletes/sportsmen in their sports are better than previous generations. The rest is conjecture, a conjecture is not false simply because it is conjecture.

You have missed the point again.

'There is no evidence for this supposed decline'.

Yet you have not provided any evidence to back up your bull**** conjecture.

I didn't disagree that there are less boxers today in America compared to previous periods. Where is your source for the total number of fighters being less today than in the 1950s or whenever? You do realize that NYC does not constitute the entire world right?

I forgot to write 'in the world' at the end, yes there were more boxers in NYC in the 1920's than in the world today - that's a fact that you can easily look up yourself. Where is your source for your claim that there is a bigger talent pool today?

I remember you posting this before when we argued a few months back, it was as false then as it is now. In plenty of athletic events the opponents are not irrelevant. The records have improved in part because athletes are physiologically better than they were in previous generations. Boxing is not totally immune to those changes. Maybe you should look in the mirror some time before calling other people idiots.

The opponent isn't relevant to the record which is what you are pointing to as evidence of an improvement. My post is completely true, you didn't counter my post at all, it's just more of your unfounded opinion again. Boxing and athletics are like apples and oranges, and you haven't explained how record setting in athletics translates into boxing.

[Humean]

You have missed the point again.

'There is no evidence for this supposed decline'.

Yet you have not provided any evidence to back up your bull**** conjecture.

Actually I did, what would count as evidence in your understanding? Conjecture is a vital element of gaining understanding and knowledge, you make it seem like it is the antithesis of knowledge.

I forgot to write 'in the world' at the end, yes there were more boxers in NYC in the 1920's than in the world today - that's a fact that you can easily look up yourself. Where is your source for your claim that there is a bigger talent pool today?

Actually this supposed fact is not easy to look up. I gather the original source would have to be the number of boxers registered with the New York State Athletic Commision for a boxing license or something like that. Again can you provide the actual source for these numbers? I have no source, it was pure speculation, conjecture much like I suspect yours is unless you can prove me wrong by providing your source. My conjecture at least has some plausible weight to it because of the growth in boxing in many other countries since the 20s,30s,40s. My claim that there is a bigger pool in terms of the increase in world population is true unless there are many other factors that prevent the increase in population to materialize an increase in boxing quality. Factors that may well have done that.


The opponent isn't relevant to the record which is what you are pointing to as evidence of an improvement. My post is completely true, you didn't counter my post at all, it's just more of your unfounded opinion again. Boxing and athletics are like apples and oranges, and you haven't explained how record setting in athletics translates into boxing.

An opponent is relevant to a race, how your rivals in the race, especially if they are in the lane next to you, can have a big influence on how well you compete in the race. Boxing is an athletic pursuit thus increased athleticism such as in the speed of movement of arms and feet, not to mention coordination and reflexes, and such like are, important determinations in boxing skill and quality. Therefore if these things have improved amongst boxers like they have in other sports, in part because of the improvements in nutrition, sport science and training practices, then it should produce an increase in boxing skill and quality.

You write that my opinion is mere conjecture and unfounded opinion and your own opinions are somehow factual or something of the like. Both of us are attempting to argue for the truthfulness of our opinions. That is the point of argument.

^^^ above quotes

[JAB5239]

I have him p4p the greatest fighter ever. Nobody fought as many greats and was as successful as Langford over such a large weight span. Would have been the middleweight champion had Ketchel not been murdered.

[rightsideup]

I have him p4p the greatest fighter ever. Nobody fought as many greats and was as successful as Langford over such a large weight span. Would have been the middleweight champion had Ketchel not been murdered.

interesting must be a Canadian.