Tweet
Not that I actually believe you know what reputable means. But that list would be precisely that.
Seriously, when did Langford ever beat anyone as good as Greb, or go 15 rounds with anyone as good as Dempsey?
Langford was very primitive. Gibbons, though not maybe on the level of his brother or Loughran, was one of the best defensive fighters of the era. It was men like Gibbons who ushered in the modern era of Boxing.
Sure, in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king. So langford, being slihtly more refined, was ability to exploit that absolute appaling lack of skills common in his Heavyweight opponents.
It also wasn't beneath him to bully smaller men, especially if they were on their way out. Gans (whom Langford couldn't drop, though a Featherweight bombed him out in 2 rounds), Walcott (disputable), O'Brien (washed up, last pro-fight), Ketchel (already a junkie) are all legendary names, but were all smaller men.
Really, Langford was a Heavyweight. A small one - even by the standard of the times. But a bigger man than Gibbons. He certainly hit harder, but Gibbons himself was a proficient puncher (77% KO to Langford's 50%), despite facing higher quality opponents.
Gibbons was only stopped once - at the end of his career, by the inimitable Gene Tunney.
So yeah, being Boxing, I really don't ever expect to see reputable lists. But that's my fault, I only rank fighters based on their ability as, ya know, Boxers. I don't give a sh.it if they couldn't eat at the same lunch counter as someone with different skin, or they were born in the shed, or they had the same haircut you had in high school, or they protested this or that (or didn't), or whatever. None of that matters. It don't matter when fighters are in the ring, does it? So why should it affect rankings?
I get it, reading ain't your thing. Pages upon pages in this thread have been filled with you being exposed as someone lacking even a 6th Grade Reading comprehension. But really, when you know I am gonna invade your keister everything you make a mistake, don't you think you should at least try to appear compotent?
What did I say about Tunney?
Now, show me a Heavyweight who's unleashed a combo like Jack did to floor Tunney.
Maybe you will refer to the NYT for that one, too?
Dempsey was a faded fighter by that point, but you can't find at fighter at 200 lbs. or below who would've pulled off what Gene did that night.
Shows how much you know about Boxing. You have never trained and you don't even watch it. A fighter can come up short andstill put on an excellent display. Only a casual would suggest otherwise.
And this is exactly what's wrong with Boxing.
The fans.
An idiot wrote this. And an even bigger idiot referred to it. I get it, you're in the business of repeating lies. You probably can't tell a lie from the truth at this point.
But look at the ******ity of the article.
Dempsey came of age in the still Wild West. When he arrived to NYC he was basically a bum. Underfed, undertrained, overworked, etc. Maybe he really was ready for Langford and was just being gracious - sounds like Jack. Or he was genuinely unprepared - makes sense, too. We can't be sure, but in both cases he's off the hook.
He's not a circus freak like Wills. He's practically a Light Heavyweight. And only a bytch who doesn't train would suggest all fighters progress at the same speed. If anything, precociousness can be severely detrimental. Look at how people remember a horribly slow starter like Gans - in any other era his career would have been over before it (truly) started. And then how they rememebr McGovern - possibly the greatest raw talent Boxing has ever seen.
Again, Boxing fans are dumb and care less about the Boxer's ability, and more about his story. But in terms of ability, McGovern was a young, green Featherweight, and he absolutely WRECKED the much bigger and more seasoned Gans. People remember Gans like a Robinson, though. McGovern is all but forgotten, he burnt out too young to really have a story.
Dempsey beat much better men than Wills. There's no dis*****g that. He also trashed their shared competition - if you can call it that, when those guys fought Wills they weren't as good as when they fought Dempsey.
Really, I know you just do this for attention. You're a sad sick waste of life. But I really do enjoy blasting my hot sticky load in your face.
Seriously, when did Langford ever beat anyone as good as Greb, or go 15 rounds with anyone as good as Dempsey?
Langford was very primitive. Gibbons, though not maybe on the level of his brother or Loughran, was one of the best defensive fighters of the era. It was men like Gibbons who ushered in the modern era of Boxing.
Sure, in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king. So langford, being slihtly more refined, was ability to exploit that absolute appaling lack of skills common in his Heavyweight opponents.
It also wasn't beneath him to bully smaller men, especially if they were on their way out. Gans (whom Langford couldn't drop, though a Featherweight bombed him out in 2 rounds), Walcott (disputable), O'Brien (washed up, last pro-fight), Ketchel (already a junkie) are all legendary names, but were all smaller men.
Really, Langford was a Heavyweight. A small one - even by the standard of the times. But a bigger man than Gibbons. He certainly hit harder, but Gibbons himself was a proficient puncher (77% KO to Langford's 50%), despite facing higher quality opponents.
Gibbons was only stopped once - at the end of his career, by the inimitable Gene Tunney.
So yeah, being Boxing, I really don't ever expect to see reputable lists. But that's my fault, I only rank fighters based on their ability as, ya know, Boxers. I don't give a sh.it if they couldn't eat at the same lunch counter as someone with different skin, or they were born in the shed, or they had the same haircut you had in high school, or they protested this or that (or didn't), or whatever. None of that matters. It don't matter when fighters are in the ring, does it? So why should it affect rankings?
I get it, reading ain't your thing. Pages upon pages in this thread have been filled with you being exposed as someone lacking even a 6th Grade Reading comprehension. But really, when you know I am gonna invade your keister everything you make a mistake, don't you think you should at least try to appear compotent?
What did I say about Tunney?
Now, show me a Heavyweight who's unleashed a combo like Jack did to floor Tunney.
Maybe you will refer to the NYT for that one, too?
Dempsey was a faded fighter by that point, but you can't find at fighter at 200 lbs. or below who would've pulled off what Gene did that night.
Shows how much you know about Boxing. You have never trained and you don't even watch it. A fighter can come up short andstill put on an excellent display. Only a casual would suggest otherwise.
And this is exactly what's wrong with Boxing.
The fans.
An idiot wrote this. And an even bigger idiot referred to it. I get it, you're in the business of repeating lies. You probably can't tell a lie from the truth at this point.
But look at the ******ity of the article.
Dempsey came of age in the still Wild West. When he arrived to NYC he was basically a bum. Underfed, undertrained, overworked, etc. Maybe he really was ready for Langford and was just being gracious - sounds like Jack. Or he was genuinely unprepared - makes sense, too. We can't be sure, but in both cases he's off the hook.
He's not a circus freak like Wills. He's practically a Light Heavyweight. And only a bytch who doesn't train would suggest all fighters progress at the same speed. If anything, precociousness can be severely detrimental. Look at how people remember a horribly slow starter like Gans - in any other era his career would have been over before it (truly) started. And then how they rememebr McGovern - possibly the greatest raw talent Boxing has ever seen.
Again, Boxing fans are dumb and care less about the Boxer's ability, and more about his story. But in terms of ability, McGovern was a young, green Featherweight, and he absolutely WRECKED the much bigger and more seasoned Gans. People remember Gans like a Robinson, though. McGovern is all but forgotten, he burnt out too young to really have a story.
Dempsey beat much better men than Wills. There's no dis*****g that. He also trashed their shared competition - if you can call it that, when those guys fought Wills they weren't as good as when they fought Dempsey.
Really, I know you just do this for attention. You're a sad sick waste of life. But I really do enjoy blasting my hot sticky load in your face.
Comment