Prime Mike Tyson versus Prime Sam Langford
JAlexa9898
your pics what do you all think as far as who would win?
Bobby Bearden
weight was only around 165 or so and he was only 5'8". Tyson probably would
have been too big for him, but if Sam could turn it into a bloody brawl of
the type he fought, Tyson might lose heart and foul out.
Bobby Bearden
JAlexa9898 <jalex...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020102222845...@mb-da.aol.com...
SDonat2313
No way does a lighter Sam Langford stand up to the punches of Tyson. Sam was a
decent but not great puncher.
Scar TKO
Loki
>I am going to do this later on my title fight boxing game but I want to hear
>your pics what do you all think as far as who would win?
Tyson. Way too big for Langford.
Loki
JAlexa9898
before he stopped Langford in the 14th round.
Symmetry
>From: jalex...@aol.com (JAlexa9898)
>Date: 1/3/02 2:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020103155704...@mb-fm.aol.com>
>
>Here are the results for anyone interested Tyson was losing on all scorecards
>before he stopped Langford in the 14th round.
>
You must have had it on "ignore weight differences", which is not the situation
people were predicting, IIRC.
f
ff
f
f
ff
f
f
f
fff
f
f
f
ff
f
f
f
f
f
ff
f
f
f
f
f
ff
ff
ff
f
f
f
ff
ff
f
ff
ff
ff
f
f
f
f
f
f
ff
f
ff
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
Larry Roberts
fighting weight was 180 lbs. and he made mince meat of guys twice his size.
I'd pick Langford to back Tyson up, and then Mikey would quit.
"Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:u37lkil...@corp.supernews.com...
Larry Roberts
was tough as hardwood with dynamite in his mitts and the heart of a freakin'
lion. They fought more than 15 times with only two knockouts.
Langford was the last man standing both times. (McVey was 5'11" tall and
packed 210 pounds of rockhard bone and muscle. No one took him lightly.)
Langford never fought for a title because champions refused to give him a
shot. Why? They knew he would find a way to beat them. Jack Johnson ran from
Langford from city to city, turned down an enormous purse from London's
National Sporting CLub rather than get in the ring with the "Boston Terror"
from Weymouth, Nova Scotia. Even when Sam was nearly a spent force, top
contenders and the great Dempsey himself ducked the little giant. Sam
Langford was one of the truly great prize fighters of the 20th century. Just
ask Mike Tyson.
Cap.
"JAlexa9898" <jalex...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020102222845...@mb-da.aol.com...
Bobby Bearden
Larry Roberts <rob...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:R86Z7.128647$pa1.40...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Langford fought a guy who could've been Tyson's uglier brother. Sam McVey
> was tough as hardwood with dynamite in his mitts and the heart of a
freakin'
> lion. They fought more than 15 times with only two knockouts.
> Langford was the last man standing both times. (McVey was 5'11" tall and
> packed 210 pounds of rockhard bone and muscle. No one took him lightly.)
> Langford never fought for a title because champions refused to give him a
> shot. Why? They knew he would find a way to beat them. Jack Johnson ran
from
> Langford from city to city, turned down an enormous purse from London's
> National Sporting CLub rather than get in the ring with the "Boston
Terror"
> from Weymouth, Nova Scotia. Even when Sam was nearly a spent force, top
> contenders and the great Dempsey himself ducked the little giant. Sam
> Langford was one of the truly great prize fighters of the 20th century.
Just
> ask Mike Tyson.
>
> Cap.
Saying Dempsey ducked Langford is really unfair to both Dempsey and
Langford. Sam fought 7 times during Dempsey's championship, losing 5 and
drawing one. That's one win in 7. He was hardly a worthy contender for
Dempsey by this late time of his career.
The story that Landford kept coming to Doc Kearns, hat in hand, asking for a
shot at Dempsey is true. That Kearns said, "Sam, I'm looking for something
easier." is also probably true. But it reflects, I believe, more a kindness
and showing of respect to the washed up Langford than an admission that
Dempsey wouldn't beat him. By this time, Sam's eyes were going on him, and
he would eventually be blind. What could Dempsey have gained by fighting him
other than distain for beating a half-blind, burnt out fighter? Look at what
they said about Marciano beating Louis, and Joe wasn't nearly as past it as
Sam.
Bobby Bearden
Larry Roberts
the record straight before the real history fanatics launch their assault.
Between July of 1919* and the end of 1924 when Sam retired with Dempsey
still champion, "Oor Sam" engaged in a total of, not seven, but 50 recorded
bouts. He had been partially blind in one eye since being thumbed by Fred
Fulton in 1917. Of those 50 bouts, Sam lost 7, two by knockout in the last
two years of his career. He won 32 of the 50, 23 by kayo. There were 8 No
Decision bouts, in most of which the local newspapers picked Sam as the
winner. During that period he had wins over Battling Jim Johnson, Big Bill
Tate, Jamaica Kid, Jeff Clarke, a young George Godfrey, Bob Devere, Bearcat
Wright, Lee Anderson, Young Peter Jackson, Fireman Jim Flynn, and Australian
heavyweight champion Jim Tracey.
This was a worn-out mitt-slinger who stood 5'8", rarely weighed much less
than 200 pounds, and was half
blind during the last few years of a once illustrious career.
Kearns didn't want Jack to fight a negro because of the Johnson-Jeffries
troubles, and didn't want Dempsey taking any chances with a foxy veteran
like Langford who could still drop a moose in his tracks with one right
hand. He'd no doubt heard the story of how Sam had drawn the outline of a
human figure on the ring floor with a piece of chalk just prior to the start
of one of his fights. Everyone stared at it in bewilderment until the fight
started and, with one powerful crack of his fist, Sam laid out his opponent
directly on top of the chalk drawing.
Cap
* When Dempsey won the title.
"Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:u3a3g18...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Larry Roberts <rob...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:R86Z7.128647$pa1.40...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Loki
>Here are the results for anyone interested Tyson was losing on all scorecards
>before he stopped Langford in the 14th round.
How did you arrive at these results?
Loki
Bobby Bearden
I stand corrected. I looked in the International Boxing Hall of Fame
Official Record Book for the years 1919-27 and it only listed 7 fights for
Langford during that period. It may be that they considered only those 7 as
fights with name opponents and worth listing, or as fights that were well
documented. When you're in the era of No decisions, exhibitions, etc. it's
not easy to look back and be sure.
Anyway, I still don't think a fight with Dempsey would have been fair for
Langford by that stage of his career, even with a lot of additional wins
over mostly unknown fighters (Jim Flynn was a name for sure in that era).
Even though I was wrong on the number of fights, it stills appears he wasn't
doing well against the top tier of figthers by that time. He was almost
blind and fighting on guts and instinct by then.
Bobby Bearden
JAlexa9898
guys on it and the neat thing is you can match people from different weight
divisions and tell the computer to discount weight. So lets say I wanted to put
Ali versus Robinson I could do that its a very neat game. I can also change
everything from the trainers, the location, the announcers, and the judges.
Paul
>I am going to do this later on my title fight boxing game but I want to hear
>your pics what do you all think as far as who would win?
I'm guessing Tyson, and that's only because of the size
advantage he would have. If Tyson and Langford were
roughly the same size, I think the advantage would go to
Langford.
Symmetry
>Message-id: <20020104013228...@mb-mj.aol.com>
>
> played the fight on my Title Fight game. Its a neat game I have hundreds of
>guys on it and the neat thing is you can match people from different weight
>divisions and tell the computer to discount weight.
That's gay. Run it again and keep the weight differences how they'd be in real
life, and let us know what happens.
JAlexa9898
Bob Sheehy
with great regularity to Harry Wills. Sad to say, but there was barely
room for one black contender in those days, much less two. It's
doubtful that Dempsey feared any man, but Kearns was far more
"practical" in his outlook: he wanted megafights and megabucks with
minimal risk to his fighter. So Wills forever became the Lewis to
Dempsey's Bowe: Langford simply wasn't in the picture at all.
Larry Roberts
beaten Dempsey, but Kearns was not going to risk the embarassment if the old
guy landed a lucky punch. Langford was as dangerous a puncher as the 40-yr
old Foreman. In one fight, when the second round started, Sam, who was out
of shape and blowing hard, insisted on shaking mitts with his young
opponent. When the other fellow said,"What for? You only does that in da
last round and this ain't it." Sam grinned and said,"It is fo' you." and
promptly knocked him out.
Cap
"Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:u3ag84...@corp.supernews.com...
Matt Tegen
> Anyway, I still don't think a fight with Dempsey would have been fair for
> Langford by that stage of his career, even with a lot of additional wins
> over mostly unknown fighters (Jim Flynn was a name for sure in that era).
> Even though I was wrong on the number of fights, it stills appears he wasn't
> doing well against the top tier of figthers by that time. He was almost
> blind and fighting on guts and instinct by then.
>
> Bobby Bearden
Fireman Flynn was totally shot from at least 1919 on. During the early
part of 1920, he was roaming around the Pacific Northwest fighting
local heros with no repuation at all, and they were beating him
easily. A Langford win over Flynn, is the equivalent of a present day
Heavyweight beating up on James "Quick" Tillis.
Matt
Larry Roberts
Langford to win minimum 8 fights out of 10.
Langford had out-boxed the Master, lightweight champion Joe Gans, when both
were around the lightweight limit. He outslugged Sam McVey and outboxed Joe
Jeannette. He just had more tools, and he had more heart.
Cap
"JAlexa9898" <jalex...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020102222845...@mb-da.aol.com...
Stanley Hammond
Stanley Hammond
> Langford was tough as nails, much tougher than Tyson, but his best fighting
> weight was only around 165 or so and he was only 5'8". Tyson probably would
> have been too big for him, but if Sam could turn it into a bloody brawl of
> the type he fought, Tyson might lose heart and foul out.
>
> Bobby Bearden
Agreed. Bobby, just curious: who would you pick in the following match-ups:
1) Muhammad Ali, Gene Tunney and James Corbett (all variations of any two)
2) Mike Tyson vs. Sonny Liston
3) Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Jack Johnson
4) Sam McVey vs. Sailor Tom Sharkey, and each one vs. Rocky Marciano?
Bobby Bearden
Stanley Hammond <lars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e4325d.02010...@posting.google.com...
> "Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
news:<u37lkil...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Langford was tough as nails, much tougher than Tyson, but his best
fighting
> > weight was only around 165 or so and he was only 5'8". Tyson probably
would
> > have been too big for him, but if Sam could turn it into a bloody brawl
of
> > the type he fought, Tyson might lose heart and foul out.
> >
> > Bobby Bearden
>
> Agreed. Bobby, just curious: who would you pick in the following
match-ups:
>
> 1) Muhammad Ali, Gene Tunney and James Corbett (all variations of any two)
Ali over Corbett but Tunney would be even money with Ali. Ali was fast and
had good ring generalship, but Tunney was a better boxer. Both men could and
did take a lot of punishment and shook it off and both could knock a man
out. Even Ali once called Tunney a "white Ali" and said, "he could fight
today and be champion". This was in the mid 1970s.
> 2) Mike Tyson vs. Sonny Liston
Tyson if he could keep it together and not let Sonny intimidate him. Two
bullies fighting is always a question of which one breaks first.
> 3) Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Jack Johnson
Walcott. He was a much better fighter than he gets credit for. He was a
better boxer than Ali and people forget that Ali copied from him. Long
before there was an "Ali shuffle" there had been the "Walcott shuffle". And
if you see films of Walcott doing it, you realize Ali copied it. Walcott
could head feint, shoulder feint, feint feint, etc. He did a shift from
right to left and back again that would throw an opponent completely off.
Joe Louis "lost" to Walcott in their first meeting, and everyone but the
judges knew it. Louis even left the ring before the decision was given, so
sure was he that he'd lost. And both men were the same age, 33, so neither
had an advantage there.
Louis himself said that Walcott would have beaten Ali and was a better
fighter.
> 4) Sam McVey vs. Sailor Tom Sharkey, and each one vs. Rocky Marciano?
I really can't say with McVey and Sharkey. Both tough men from a brutally
tough era of boxing. Marciano was just as tough and by his time boxing
technique had improved. For all the distractors who think Marciano was
clumsy he was actually a much better fighter than they give him credit for
being.
Sharkey was of the type they called "iron men" around the turn of the
century, and one of the best of that breed. Usually the iron men were guys
who could take tremendous punishment but really didn't win that many fights.
People came to see if they could be knocked out. But now and then, and it
was rarely, there came along an iron man who could also fight effectively
rather than just absorb punishment. Fight managers of the time were always
hoping to find the iron man who could also fight well enough to not only
withstand the attacks of better boxers, but also get to them and beat them.
Sharkey could. Jim Jefferies could. And Marciano was of the same type. Even
in the 1950s, they referred to Rocky as a "throwback" to the turn of the
century fighters.
I can't say if Marciano would beat McVey and Sharkey, but he was of the same
type fighter and the fights would be brutal, no-quarter wars.
Bobby Bearden
BoxMuham
>
>Tyson if he could keep it together and not let Sonny intimidate him.
That is a VERY tall order. Liston was the most menacing heavyweight off
all time, next to prime George Foreman.
Two
>bullies fighting is always a question of which one breaks first.
Liston's sledgehammer jab would dissuade Tyson from throwing
combinations and put him into one-punch KO mode shortly after the opening bell.
Tyson does NOT like a pressure approach, especially from an opponent with
Liston's ability. Liston would be pursuing an "out of his element" Tyson for
most of the fight. Liston had the potential to brutalize a guy like Tyson.
Liston would handle Tyson like he handled the prime Cleveland Williams,
though the KO might not come as quickly. Again, Tyson does not do well against
a top opponent who can impose his will on a fight, dictate the style. Given
Liston's style, he would control this fight. There is very little to suggest
Tyson could last with someone like Sonny Liston.
Liston's massive reach and solid-rock-like size, the power in his
fists, along with his surprising movement and pursuing ability would overwhelm
a fighter like Tyson.
Liston by KO/TKO/foul out.
BoxMuhammad
Stanley Hammond
> Stanley Hammond <lars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1e4325d.02010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Bobby Bearden" <th...@digitalexp.com> wrote in message
> news:<u37lkil...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > Langford was tough as nails, much tougher than Tyson, but his best
> fighting
> > > weight was only around 165 or so and he was only 5'8". Tyson probably
> would
> > > have been too big for him, but if Sam could turn it into a bloody brawl
> of
> > > the type he fought, Tyson might lose heart and foul out.
> > >
> > > Bobby Bearden
> >
> > Agreed. Bobby, just curious: who would you pick in the following
> match-ups:
> >
> > 1) Muhammad Ali, Gene Tunney and James Corbett (all variations of any two)
>
> Ali over Corbett but Tunney would be even money with Ali. Ali was fast and
> had good ring generalship, but Tunney was a better boxer. Both men could and
> did take a lot of punishment and shook it off and both could knock a man
> out. Even Ali once called Tunney a "white Ali" and said, "he could fight
> today and be champion". This was in the mid 1970s.
So do you think Tunney would beat Corbett, too? (I actually thought
Corbett's lighter weight had an advantage over Ali -- Ali would tire
and consequently get slower in the later rounds, but not Corbett, who
would keep up the same work rate to pick up the late rounds... but I
could be wrong.)
What about Tunney, Ali and Corbett each vs. Jack Johnson?
>
> > 2) Mike Tyson vs. Sonny Liston
>
> Tyson if he could keep it together and not let Sonny intimidate him. Two
> bullies fighting is always a question of which one breaks first.
>
>
> > 3) Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Jack Johnson
>
> Walcott. He was a much better fighter than he gets credit for. He was a
> better boxer than Ali and people forget that Ali copied from him. Long
> before there was an "Ali shuffle" there had been the "Walcott shuffle". And
> if you see films of Walcott doing it, you realize Ali copied it. Walcott
> could head feint, shoulder feint, feint feint, etc. He did a shift from
> right to left and back again that would throw an opponent completely off.
> Joe Louis "lost" to Walcott in their first meeting, and everyone but the
> judges knew it. Louis even left the ring before the decision was given, so
> sure was he that he'd lost. And both men were the same age, 33, so neither
> had an advantage there.
> Louis himself said that Walcott would have beaten Ali and was a better
> fighter.
Well, you talked about Walcott vs. Louis, and I appreciate the input
on how underrated Jersey Joe is, (which I think is true,) but you
didn't mention Jack Johnson. (Didn't Louis' trainer, Jack Blackburn,
actually say that Johnson would box rings around Louis because of the
latter's chronic trouble with mobile fighters?) Do you think Walcott
would beat Johnson, who, as I understand it, had more mobility than
Louis? Where would one and/or the other have advantages?
Bobby Bearden
I don't know about Corbett having more stamina than Ali if they fought with
more updated rules. I've read the newspaper round by round account of
Corbett's fight with Peter Jackson and they'd go for round without either
one throwing a punch. At one point, for three rounds neither one did more
than a little pawing so they could rest. Of course, over those longer fights
a man's hands would start to hurt and he'd get very conservative with
punches, but it doesn't mean Corbett would outlast prime Ali.
> What about Tunney, Ali and Corbett each vs. Jack Johnson?
>
All three would have a chance to beat Johnson, especially Tunney and Ali.
I've never thought Johnson was as great as some people, and surely not one
of the top five heavyweights of all time. He dominated his era and went
through hell, I must admit. But, he wasn't always the winner against the
other really good black fighters of his time, or even some of the white
ones. He refused to fight black fighters once he was champion. He beat Tommy
Burns who was a very good fighter, but also much smaller. He beat Ketchel,
who was only a middleweight. Most of the Great White Hopes were just big men
chosen for their size more than anything. Some of them weren't even real
boxers, or so I've read. He fought longshoremen, a lumberjack, etc. Johnson
was a cautious, defensive minded fighter, holding his arms straight out to
catch the other guy's punches with his open gloves. That works fine with
smaller or inexperianced fighters. I don't think it would work against
Tunney or Ali. And might not against Corbett, either. Gentleman Jim beat
Choynski twice and he beat Johnson.
I don't think I'd bet against any of the three against Johnson, though I'd
not bet the farm on Corbett.
> > > 3) Jersey Joe Walcott vs. Jack Johnson
> >
> > Walcott. He was a much better fighter than he gets credit for. He was a
> > better boxer than Ali and people forget that Ali copied from him. Long
> > before there was an "Ali shuffle" there had been the "Walcott shuffle".
And
> > if you see films of Walcott doing it, you realize Ali copied it. Walcott
> > could head feint, shoulder feint, feint feint, etc. He did a shift from
> > right to left and back again that would throw an opponent completely
off.
> > Joe Louis "lost" to Walcott in their first meeting, and everyone but the
> > judges knew it. Louis even left the ring before the decision was given,
so
> > sure was he that he'd lost. And both men were the same age, 33, so
neither
> > had an advantage there.
> > Louis himself said that Walcott would have beaten Ali and was a better
> > fighter.
>
> Well, you talked about Walcott vs. Louis, and I appreciate the input
> on how underrated Jersey Joe is, (which I think is true,) but you
> didn't mention Jack Johnson. (Didn't Louis' trainer, Jack Blackburn,
> actually say that Johnson would box rings around Louis because of the
> latter's chronic trouble with mobile fighters?) Do you think Walcott
> would beat Johnson, who, as I understand it, had more mobility than
> Louis? Where would one and/or the other have advantages?
I think Walcott would have beaten Johnson completely. He was better all
around.
Walcott fought Ezzard Charles 4 times, losing the first two and winning the
second two. Charles was fast, had great combinations, and was a tough man.
Johnson was no where near as mobile as Charles, and he surely couldn't throw
combinations like Charles. (I think Charles beats Johnso, too)
I think Walcott might have to go the distance with Johnson, but he'd win.
Louis would have beat Johnson, too. Louis did have trouble with very mobile
fighters, like Billy Conn, but he got to them eventually. Johnson wasn't as
fast as Conn. He could punch harder, but to punch Louis you had to get where
Louis could punch you, too.
Joe might have had trouble with mobile fighters but he didn't lost to them,
nor did he lose to defensive fighters. He had the patience to wait till he
could create an opening. I've got the film of Johnson and Ketchel and
Stanley telegraphs that right hand that dropped Johnson. Louis had short,
fast punches with no warning.
Louis takes him out by round 8 or so.
Bobby Bearden
Stanley Hammond
he won decisions over Sam McVey, Sam Langford, and Joe Jeanette, and
once KO'd McVey.
My theory on Johnson is that he was a great boxer, (and he could punch
-- he KO'd Ketchel and McVey with a single uppercut, evicting multiple
teeth on both occasions, and he broke Fireman Jim Flynn's jaw) but
didn't wish to exert himself without necessity; however, he would if
pressed hard enough. (Again, he boxed well enough to outpoint McVey,
Langford and Jeanette, and I'd expect him to put on another fine
performance vs. Walcott, against whom Johnson, I'm sure, could ill
afford to get sloppy.) Jack Johnson simply wanted his fights to look
good to increase the sales involved; (Johnson actually made a deal
with Ketchel to take it easy, but Ketchel double-crossed him; furious,
Johnson retaliated and ended the fight right there with a thunderous
uppercut.) furthermore, Johnson was a sadist who enjoyed frustrating
his opponents and making them suffer, all the while flaunting his
considerable defensive skills.
In short, Bobby, I think you're underestimating Johnson. I personally
think he's the best of the pure boxers, (Larry Holmes a close second,
ahead of Tunney and Corbett, IMHO) but I realize how underrated
Walcott is, and I thought I'd give him a fair hearing. (Again, the
reason I think you're underestimating Johnson is because he didn't
like to exert himself, and wasn't very often forced to do so, but if
he had to, prime Johnson could box for 15, 20 rounds as casually as
one might skip rope; and I'm talking about the Johnson who, indeed,
beat McVey and Langford, without taking time out to clown.)
Stanley Hammond
How about Corbett vs. Tunney?