Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Sam Langford the best fighter ever?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by JAB5239 View Post
    As far as heavyweight goes, I rank Marciano higher. But p4p Langford is arguably the greatest of all time based on his top notch wins from lightweight to heavyweight and longevity. You can't blame Sam for being shut out of title fights. Unless we're going to argue that he was just to good.
    I get you, Shoulder already clarified and you're more along the lines he spoke to than what I had inferred from his original point.


    "merit" I took to mean titles and awards alone. No consideration for things like resume, just awards. That's why i was like wait a minute bud, if you use resume Sam has a good argument, but on titles alone he's not even in the convo.


    He just meant highs really. Like Drawing with Joe, did not get him WW title but I understand why youse see it as a merit.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
      Can you explain why crazy *****es like you kills guys pets?

      I can understand the whole "if I can't have him, then no one can" mentality. It's still wrong. DON'T DO IT. But why kill your ex-boyfriend's dog just because he put a restraining order out against you?

      Like has that ever worked? Has a guy ever told you, " now, that you killed my dog, I totally see how much you love me. Let's get back together!" Something makes me think not. But given your love to gab, I'm sure you'll clarify in depth.
      Pookie pookie... you trying too hard. You know, your not clever lol.

      Now Pook: we tried the pajama karate thing, now the Glen Close thing? your boring me.

      Keep blowing hard, its ok whrn your idiocy meets a full pitch you can suicide by mod.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
        It's cool how you can just make up facts.

        How does that work for you IRL? I imagine that could be a lot of fun.... at first.

        The Ketchel fight:
        - wasn't a clear win for EITHER man.
        - Ketchel's fast living seems to have caught up with him.
        - Sam was the bigger, more experienced fighter.
        - It was only SIX rounds.


        The Walcott fight is arguably young Langford's most impressive performance. Does it stand out as exceptional? I dunno. He clearly still had some maturing to do before he reached his best.

        I really do believe Sam was quite good.

        But Marciano stopped Charles and Moore at their peak.
        Others, not me, rank them top 20, if not top 10, P4P. Can't say that about anyone Langford fought.
        No he didn't. Its cool how you can just make up facts... Neither fighter was in their peak.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
          No he didn't. Its cool how you can just make up facts... Neither fighter was in their peak.
          Oh yeah? Who told you that, Mr. Miyagi?


          At least he doesn't think you're an irrelevant *****... so long as you fill his pockets with your cash.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
            Pookie pookie... you trying too hard. You know, your not clever lol.

            Now Pook: we tried the pajama karate thing, now the Glen Close thing? your boring me.

            Keep blowing hard, its ok whrn your idiocy meets a full pitch you can suicide by mod.
            Ah shoot, looks like I caught you too late in the day... just as it was time for the straight jacket to come back on.


            Pity. I know we were in for a doozie... fit with references ranging from Rothko, to Proust, to Kant, to Gloria Estefan, to the art of ancient Babylonian reed weaving.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
              Oh yeah? Who told you that, Mr. Miyagi?


              At least he doesn't think you're an irrelevant *****... so long as you fill his pockets with your cash.
              Its a fact you. Charles you might be able to argue he was still at a relative young age, at 33 but Moore? Neither guy was at their best years. marciano, who was a bona fide heavy was 30 by comparison, the apex age for a heavy weight.

              Both men had been in many battles, and were not heavyweights but fighting to take percieved low hanging fruit.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
                Ah shoot, looks like I caught you too late in the day... just as it was time for the straight jacket to come back on.


                Pity. I know we were in for a doozie... fit with references ranging from Rothko, to Proust, to Kant, to Gloria Estefan, to the art of ancient Babylonian reed weaving.
                Its always revealing when a so called fellow teacher (I believe you for the record) mocks another for being well educated. But thats why Jersey and Florida reign supreme in the ****** category. Heck you were probably better than the crap they hire nowadays... Just kind of a shame that your ego would let you commit to such ugliness pook. To each his own.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Four and six round bouts were very normal back in the teens.

                  Most historians give the nod to Langford. In a poll of 13 NY and Philadelphia newspapers, 7 had Langford ahead, 4 favored Ketchel, and 2 had it a draw.

                  Ala a newspaper decision win for Langford.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by HOUDINI563 View Post
                    Four and six round bouts were very normal back in the teens.

                    Most historians give the nod to Langford. In a poll of 13 NY and Philadelphia newspapers, 7 had Langford ahead, 4 favored Ketchel, and 2 had it a draw.

                    Ala a newspaper decision win for Langford.
                    So Willie Meehan is the grratest fighter of all time, after Harry Greb?


                    The fight was clearly close, and not indicative of who was the better man. Certainly, the onus was on Langford, as the bigger and more experienced fighter, to win. He didn't, not cleanly. So moral victory for Ketchel.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                      Its a fact you. Charles you might be able to argue he was still at a relative young age, at 33 but Moore? Neither guy was at their best years. marciano, who was a bona fide heavy was 30 by comparison, the apex age for a heavy weight.

                      Both men had been in many battles, and were not heavyweights but fighting to take percieved low hanging fruit.
                      I dunno bud. Physical prime maybe but high point in their careers is harder to argue against for Moore than Charles.

                      Charles did okay, but not great, on his comeback from the Walcott losses

                      Moore on the other hand was in the middle of like a 20 fight win streak and was the current LHW champ, not a former.

                      Maybe not the highest, given he got KO'd in the end, but I wouldn't call it a low point. One of his best career win streaks, a championship run, only cut short because he tried himself in a weigh class above and other than not attaining a title off Marciano, Patterson, or Ali didn't do too damn bad.

                      Marciano, Patterson, and Ali is a hell of a title fight list of opponents. It's not like he was handed Braddock or Sharkey.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP