Langford vs Schmeling

[Rusty Tromboni]

The fight was fixed and EVERYONE knows it.

Oh yeah? You took a poll?

I don't doubt that a lot of people believe that fight was fixed.

But logical fallacies are not a way to win an argument. Argumentum ad populum might be the worst.

Consider, for once in your life, the obvious facts:

1) Most people have not seen that fight.
2) Those who have seen the fight have seen it in the poor quality of the day, not the refurbished version JackP has provided us.
3) Those who have seen it have almost certainly never Boxed, or really done any striking Martial Art.
4) If they have, it's been Ammies, with oversized gloves and headgear.
5) Show it to anyone who trained for MMA, or at least watched MMA enough, and they'll see it's perfectly normal.
6) All the "facts" about the fight being rigged a hearsay, and would get trashed in court. It's the kind of conspiracy that entertainment news is fueled by.

IF Gans threw the fight, why is he fighting for his life? Why does he throw serious heat at McGovern (who walks through the punches). Why does he fight here the same as in other fights - except with more urgency? Why did Jimmy Britt succeed just the same? Was that a work, too?


I get it. You stepped in too deep. You got called out. Now you feel cornered and you have to lash out to prevent getting swallowed up. I know what you're thinking. But you make things worse for yourself trying to pretend you know a lot about something you know nothing at all.

In the meantime, what other fights were fixed?

jackson-mccallum
barkley-hearns
ruiz-joshua
johnson-smith
quarry-shavers
Foreman-Ali


Clearly, it tends to be that explosive punchers/rangey fighters have weaker chins, or simply give up easier. (It's even more apparent in MMA where striking is still being figured out, PEDs come into play, and smaller gloves are employed). It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint: more athletic animals are prey, more robust animals are predators.

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -Rare for me to ever agree with Rustbucket, but look at the first KD.

What can I say? I'm flattered?

If I keep up the good behavior, will you start baking me cookies?

Gans smartly boxing to start the fight whereas McG doing a raging bull to close distance, connects solid, a hard KD. Gans is partially propped up with his legs together, typical fight body language for a fighter having lost control of his legs, but being Gans he wills himself up. McG swarms the wounded prey and Gans starts swinging for the fences as his only hope. Had he connected clean with McG rushing forward, McG would be the KO victim and you'd be here today hoist on your petard about the Gans superiority.

I'm not saying you called it a fluke, but the way you describe it makes it seem like dumb luck. It wasn't. McGovern was clearly just that good. The smart money came in on him late because he was the best man in Boxing at the time. If there was any reason for the fight leading to the ban of Boxing, it was because of the level of ******** involved. And possibly the wrong person got his feeling's hurt - buyer's remorse. I don't know if we have any knowledge as to who bet on Gans, but it could provide a lot clarity regarding the STORIES that have developed following this fight.

McGovern was pure class. But he didn't really have a means for negating his opponents' offense other than sheer will. Gritty bastard. But unlike Duran and Lomachenko he didn't know how to apply pressure w/o getting him. Gans hit him plenty, and hard. It wasn't enough that night. But the accumulation of beating that young lad took in his developmental years ruined him. Truly a savage. One of the best to ever lace them up.

This fight really is a measuring stick for how well people "get it". If you've ever done any combat sport at a competitive level, it's a perfectly normal fight. Clearly nothing su****ious.

[ShoulderRoll]

"Sam Langford was one of the hardest punchers of all time, and certainly must be ranked amoung the top 10 heavyweights of all time. I wouldn't call him as many have, the greatest heavyweight, but he does merit a place among the top ten.

I saw him fight five times, against Harry Wills, Battling Jim Johnson, Sam McVey , Joe Jeannette, and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. He was not only a terrific hitter but he was also a good boxer. He could even stun a man by hitting him on the shoulder or arms. Sam was endowed with everything. He possessed strength, agility, cleverness, hitting power, a good thinking cap and an abundance of courage. He feared no one. But he had the fatal gift of being too good and that's why he often had to give away weight in early days and make agreements with opponents."

--Nat Fleischer

[Rusty Tromboni]

"Sam Langford was one of the hardest punchers of all time, and certainly must be ranked amoung the top 10 heavyweights of all time. I wouldn't call him as many have, the greatest heavyweight, but he does merit a place among the top ten.

I saw him fight five times, against Harry Wills, Battling Jim Johnson, Sam McVey , Joe Jeannette, and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien. He was not only a terrific hitter but he was also a good boxer. He could even stun a man by hitting him on the shoulder or arms. Sam was endowed with everything. He possessed strength, agility, cleverness, hitting power, a good thinking cap and an abundance of courage. He feared no one. But he had the fatal gift of being too good and that's why he often had to give away weight in early days and make agreements with opponents."

--Nat Fleischer

Oh, look at that! Safe Spaces can copy and paste. Who's buying the trophy?

[ShoulderRoll]

Oh, look at that! Safe Spaces can copy and paste. Who's buying the trophy?

Oh look at that.

This phaggot wants us to listen to him pontificate on MMA matches instead of considering the opinion of a guy who actually saw Langford fight.

[billeau2]

Lefty really knows how to start a thread, huh?

No one is disagreeing that Sam was great. He was more naturally talented than Max, and better P4P for many reasons. But that same can be said twice of Mickey Walker. How did that go?

Langford was not Schmeling's equal in the ring. They're actually not that much different in size. Michael Spinks, whom Sam shares a famous list with - the ATG best Light Heavyweights, almost surely had greater size on Langford than Max did.

But look at that footage, Sam has great footwork and punch selection, but he's comfortable unloading on men who cannot really offer anything in return. He's defensively capable, but not in way that he can spoil Schmeling's night. The guy's he's in there with have no idea what they are doing. The one tall White guy is the only one who really seems to have taken a punch before and has any desire to keep fighting.

Things can happen in fights. It's easily the most unpredictable adn up-set friendly sport going. Earlier I referenced Melvin Manhoef's KO of Hunt. It was Earth-shattering at the time, despite Melvin's power. But I bet a lot of fight fans don't know that fight or have forgotten about it - MMA, Boxing, and Kickboxing are FULL of moments like that, so it's easy to get lost. That being said, Sam's chances of an upset are really low. He's gonna wind up worse than Stribling. If he does better than Walker, it's simply because Walker was ill-prepared for his fight with Max (not that he would have ever won, but the good life had clearly gotten to him by that point).

Lefty does indeed!

I don't think the concept of equal applies here. We are comparing apples to oranges... It miraculously worked when Dempsey fought Tunney. But Tunney was trained in both systems. He had the feints, the footwork, the tactics that Corbet shared with him, and the emphasis on punching, the upper body movements, the punch selection, of the new era ushered in by Dempsey and brought to the Apogee by Louis.

Ill say this and all I ask is try it. Look at fighters from before the golden age of the punch, and watch their feet, that is where the game really is. its fencing work... you do not counter so much as parry into the hits. Schmelling's game was in the hands. The feet shuffle forward, there is actually little difference to how Schmelling shuffles in and Liston. The exchanges happen so fast the counter has to be thrown as the antagonist's punch is coming back...In Sam's time no fighters would be that close unless they were heading backwards because they had been unbalanced and were being attacked on all fronts.

Sam's advantage is general in nature: He operates at a distance where he can see what is coming his way. When Someone gets too close it goes right to the grapple. Sam can fight at a distance, all the guys back then could if they were good fighters.

Schmelling has to operate at a range where no fighter in Sam's time would be; right in front of the guy. Schmelling is going to use shoulders, head movements, deflections and counters...but how does he operate that way when the other guy fights at sword length?

People don't think about these issues. I would say boxing as a martial art favors the old way. As a sport, the classical way forces the fight into punching range. But any way you look at it, the fight would have an ebb and flow that might be similar to dempsey Tunney. More likely we would see confusion and a lot of adjustments made.

Here is an analogy: You get a show on tv...a survival show and your putting two great athletes out there to see who can survive. You use Lou ferrigno...whatever his name is, the incredible Hulk, and you are using the greatest marathon runner., Jim fixx.. Now some guy on survival scene starts a thread and asks who will make it? who would survive? Elbow roll pipes up " hey Ferrigno was great!" Ironoxidetrumpet says "nah Jim fixx could run all day, he is great!" Then some neardowell dilla3345 points out the following: 'Yeah they are both great athletes, but neither of them are in a situation where they can apply their ability until one of them, or both, or none... can adapt their abilities to the situation at hand. Hence, who is better is not the issue so much as who finds a way to use his abilities against the problem at hand.

Who would figure out how to use his talents against an opponent who fought so different?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Oh look at that.

This phaggot wants us to listen to him pontificate on MMA matches instead of considering the opinion of a guy who actually saw Langford fight.

hahahaha!

JohnL said your blow jobs don't live up to the hype.


I have to agree.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Lefty does indeed!

I don't think the concept of equal applies here. We are comparing apples to oranges... It miraculously worked when Dempsey fought Tunney. But Tunney was trained in both systems. He had the feints, the footwork, the tactics that Corbet shared with him, and the emphasis on punching, the upper body movements, the punch selection, of the new era ushered in by Dempsey and brought to the Apogee by Louis.

Ill say this and all I ask is try it. Look at fighters from before the golden age of the punch, and watch their feet, that is where the game really is. its fencing work... you do not counter so much as parry into the hits. Schmelling's game was in the hands. The feet shuffle forward, there is actually little difference to how Schmelling shuffles in and Liston. The exchanges happen so fast the counter has to be thrown as the antagonist's punch is coming back...In Sam's time no fighters would be that close unless they were heading backwards because they had been unbalanced and were being attacked on all fronts.

Sam's advantage is general in nature: He operates at a distance where he can see what is coming his way. When Someone gets too close it goes right to the grapple. Sam can fight at a distance, all the guys back then could if they were good fighters.

Schmelling has to operate at a range where no fighter in Sam's time would be; right in front of the guy. Schmelling is going to use shoulders, head movements, deflections and counters...but how does he operate that way when the other guy fights at sword length?

People don't think about these issues. I would say boxing as a martial art favors the old way. As a sport, the classical way forces the fight into punching range. But any way you look at it, the fight would have an ebb and flow that might be similar to dempsey Tunney. More likely we would see confusion and a lot of adjustments made.

Here is an analogy: You get a show on tv...a survival show and your putting two great athletes out there to see who can survive. You use Lou ferrigno...whatever his name is, the incredible Hulk, and you are using the greatest marathon runner., Jim fixx.. Now some guy on survival scene starts a thread and asks who will make it? who would survive? Elbow roll pipes up " hey Ferrigno was great!" Ironoxidetrumpet says "nah Jim fixx could run all day, he is great!" Then some neardowell dilla3345 points out the following: 'Yeah they are both great athletes, but neither of them are in a situation where they can apply their ability until one of them, or both, or none... can adapt their abilities to the situation at hand. Hence, who is better is not the issue so much as who finds a way to use his abilities against the problem at hand.

Who would figure out how to use his talents against an opponent who fought so different?

great post, but what do you see Langdford do better than Stribiling (who actually beat great fighters)?

[billeau2]

great post, but what do you see Langdford do better than Stribiling (who actually beat great fighters)?

I don't know much about Stribling or Sam for that matter. I look at indicators on paper and then...because this f u c k i n g generation does not appreciate things like WiKI and YouTube... I watch film of any fight, or fighter that pretty much existed, and catch a summerization of anything from a source that is more than written for a five year old... between those sources, Star Trek and posters of Olivia Neuton John, I would have NEVER left my room! lol.

So I look at tape on a fighter and information. I situate them, and may wager an opinion. I value the trainers the most. These are guys who worked with the fighters... They touched the shoulders of Mike tyson all the way back sometimes to Marciano... They saw the sparring, the foibles, the ***** and all.

And sometimes we get a philosophical issue. A problem related to "quality" as in Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Ill give you my favorite example: Marchinegra (sp?) posts here, he is a Puerto Rican guy who has spent a good part of his time researching fighters, and boxing before the Marque of Queensbury. Very knowlegable guy...He calls Marciano one in seven generations. This coming from a guy who has geneology on fighters back to the Greeks! Other very knowlegable types like Don Turner, a guy who engineered the Holy victory over Tyson, and the late Lou Duva also held Marciano as the absolute best all things considered.

How could this be? We all know that Marciano had none of the polish really. What is the Quality that makes these men, a historian on the one hand, and two trainers...and of course there are others, think that Marciano was such a rarity? I think if we look at this question it might actually speak to fighters like "Sam."

There are two parts to fighting and ultimately for sports applications you need both: One needs the technical applications and one needs a driver...Some quality that makes them willful and motivated. Its not simply that these two qualities exist...One aspect of greatness is how these qualities work together!

Take Louis versus Schmelling. In both instances the "driver" was not strong enough, or was overcome. Louis eventually gave up. he was beaten...On the rematch Schmelling likewise succumbed to what was really just an attack. there was nothing technical about how Louis approached Schmelling that second fight... He took out Schmelling's driver, made it unable to work with the technical.

Sam has some qualities that Marciano had. Marciano's rarity was that he would not let his driver be taken out, if that makes sense. he fought all kinds of great fighters, maybe not at prime, but he hung in there, and always kept operating to win. What trainers seem to understand is that while every fighter can say, "they will have to carry me out" most fighters have a line, a place they cannot go. Klitko the first was never going to fight Sanders after he was Koed... as an example. Marciano really was a guy who would never stop. He was losing to guys... but he had a driver that never let him back off and trainers, historians saw such a gigantic talent that way that some were willing to call marciano, the rarest kind of fighter.

Sam operates with a very strong driver Rusty. It allowed him to fight under all kinds of circumstances...when he had power, when he did not...and it didn't matter because if he didn't KO you he would find other ways to attack you. I don't think Schmelling had that aspect as strong as Sam. Not that he could not have found a way to overcome Sam using his strong suite, his technical skills... but to me? Its a coin toss as to who prevails.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I don't know much about Stribling or Sam for that matter. I look at indicators on paper and then...because this f u c k i n g generation does not appreciate things like WiKI and YouTube... I watch film of any fight, or fighter that pretty much existed, and catch a summerization of anything from a source that is more than written for a five year old... between those sources, Star Trek and posters of Olivia Neuton John, I would have NEVER left my room! lol.

So I look at tape on a fighter and information. I situate them, and may wager an opinion. I value the trainers the most. These are guys who worked with the fighters... They touched the shoulders of Mike tyson all the way back sometimes to Marciano... They saw the sparring, the foibles, the ***** and all.

And sometimes we get a philosophical issue. A problem related to "quality" as in Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Ill give you my favorite example: Marchinegra (sp?) posts here, he is a Puerto Rican guy who has spent a good part of his time researching fighters, and boxing before the Marque of Queensbury. Very knowlegable guy...He calls Marciano one in seven generations. This coming from a guy who has geneology on fighters back to the Greeks! Other very knowlegable types like Don Turner, a guy who engineered the Holy victory over Tyson, and the late Lou Duva also held Marciano as the absolute best all things considered.

How could this be? We all know that Marciano had none of the polish really. What is the Quality that makes these men, a historian on the one hand, and two trainers...and of course there are others, think that Marciano was such a rarity? I think if we look at this question it might actually speak to fighters like "Sam."

There are two parts to fighting and ultimately for sports applications you need both: One needs the technical applications and one needs a driver...Some quality that makes them willful and motivated. Its not simply that these two qualities exist...One aspect of greatness is how these qualities work together!

Take Louis versus Schmelling. In both instances the "driver" was not strong enough, or was overcome. Louis eventually gave up. he was beaten...On the rematch Schmelling likewise succumbed to what was really just an attack. there was nothing technical about how Louis approached Schmelling that second fight... He took out Schmelling's driver, made it unable to work with the technical.

Sam has some qualities that Marciano had. Marciano's rarity was that he would not let his driver be taken out, if that makes sense. he fought all kinds of great fighters, maybe not at prime, but he hung in there, and always kept operating to win. What trainers seem to understand is that while every fighter can say, "they will have to carry me out" most fighters have a line, a place they cannot go. Klitko the first was never going to fight Sanders after he was Koed... as an example. Marciano really was a guy who would never stop. He was losing to guys... but he had a driver that never let him back off and trainers, historians saw such a gigantic talent that way that some were willing to call marciano, the rarest kind of fighter.

Sam operates with a very strong driver Rusty. It allowed him to fight under all kinds of circumstances...when he had power, when he did not...and it didn't matter because if he didn't KO you he would find other ways to attack you. I don't think Schmelling had that aspect as strong as Sam. Not that he could not have found a way to overcome Sam using his strong suite, his technical skills... but to me? Its a coin toss as to who prevails.

Again, great post, but watch the Schmeling Stribling fight.

I'm actually related to Gunboat Smyth (who beat Langford), and even I can admit Stribiling was his superior.

Marciano was like Langford in that he had great timing. Again, put them in to the modern era, can you be sure either wins a championship? Neither man beats Usyk. Forget even considering matching them with Fury.