Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?
Has to be Conn for me.
He lost in arguably the best losing performance ever to Louis. whilst a loss is still a loss, the point is he proved his class.
Louis aside, he beat everyone he faced whilst prime:
HW - Pastor,McCoy, Savold, Barlund - Louis (L).
LHW - Lesnevich (x2), Apostoli (x2), Zale, Yarosz, Krieger (x2), Bettina (x2), Dorazio, Actis - Yarosz (L).
MW: Corbett III, Zivic, Yarosz, Dundee, Movan (x2), Risko, Rankins, Seelig - Corbett III (L), Krieger (L).
that is a great resume spanning 3 divisions, he also spent 2 years as the best LHW in the world.
Spinks on the other hand spent 3 years as the best LHW in the world and just over half a year as the best HW
HW: Holmes, Cooney - Holmes (L*), Tyson (L).
LHW: Qawi, M Johnson, Muhammad, Lopez, Sutherland (x2), Sears, MacDonald, E Davis, J Davis, Wasajia.
When I began this post I was quite resolute. Now I'm not so sure.
I think it's clear that Conn has a better resume. I think it's also clear that spinks achieved more.
I think Conn is a greater LHW on the strength of his resume being better but Spinks is the greater HW on the strength of actually beating a legit HW ATG.
I think conn's run as a MW contender might be enough to tip the balance here, but again I'm not so sure.
the more I think about it, the harder the decision is.
My instinct says Conn, but I'm not overly sure it's a position I could vehemently defend.