Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2012, 09:01 AM   #1
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,418
vCash: 1000
Default Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Conn has the handy addition of a decent MW run to go with his LHW domination, but in spite of some good scalps, he can't match Michael's astonishing feat of ripping the HW crown from an ATG champ, all be it one on the fade.

Who would you rank higher p4p?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-03-2012, 09:12 AM   #2
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default 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.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:18 AM   #3
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,418
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Haha, great post.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:36 AM   #4
Legend X
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Billy Conn.

He came up against a prime Joe Louis and fought extremely well. I don't think Spinks would have done as well.
Spinks wrested the crown from a far-less-than-prime Larry Holmes.


Billy Conn had more fights, fought more big names. His resume is longer.
Legend X is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:37 AM   #5
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,418
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Who do you think has the single best two victories between the two?
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:50 AM   #6
Legend X
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Who do you think has the single best two victories between the two?
I'd say Spinks has the best single victory. Beating an officially 48-0 Holmes.
Legend X is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 09:53 AM   #7
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,418
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Yeah, I think so too. I also don't think that his wider resume is to be sniffed at and although I agree Conn beat more great fighters and at more weights, I just think that the achievement or wrestling the HW title of the world as a former LHW champion can't be underestimated. Only a couple of guys have done it and i'd suggest that Spinks's task - to outbox arguably the best boxer the HW division had ever produced - was tougher than Tunney's, to out-box a swarming puncher. I also think Dempsey was further gone.
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 10:10 AM   #8
Legend X
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 2,378
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McGrain View Post
Yeah, I think so too. I also don't think that his wider resume is to be sniffed at and although I agree Conn beat more great fighters and at more weights, I just think that the achievement or wrestling the HW title of the world as a former LHW champion can't be underestimated. Only a couple of guys have done it and i'd suggest that Spinks's task - to outbox arguably the best boxer the HW division had ever produced - was tougher than Tunney's, to out-box a swarming puncher. I also think Dempsey was further gone.
This is true.
To be fair to Tunney, he made it look suitably "easier" as well. I mean, he BEAT Dempsey more clearly than Spinks beat Holmes.

To be fair to Spinks (versus Conn), he might well have been able to give Joe Louis a rough time too.

The main thing for me that 'taints' Spinks's win over Holmes (just a bit) is the fact that just 3 months earlier Holmes got battered by a novice heavyweight Carl Truth Williams.
Legend X is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 10:27 AM   #9
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

I still haven't watched Holmes-Williams so I don't have much of an opinion on it.

I think Spinks achievement of being the best LHW and HW is very great but I also think it's a tad overrated because it's the first official time. Guys like charles, bivins, tunney, langford, and fitz have all done it as well.

What I'm trying to say is that the credit Spinks gets is deserved, but those I listed deserve the same amount of credit for the feat as well.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:13 PM   #10
WhyYouLittle
Stand Still
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I think Spinks achievement of being the best LHW and HW is very great but I also think it's a tad overrated because it's the first official time. Guys like charles, bivins, tunney, langford, and fitz have all done it as well.

What I'm trying to say is that the credit Spinks gets is deserved, but those I listed deserve the same amount of credit for the feat as well.
Well said. Charles and Tunney fit specially well considering they fought older versions of the champs. But as McGrain mentioned, Tunney's task was easier when you consider Dempsey's deterioration and the fact that he was a swarmer.

Last edited by WhyYouLittle; 08-03-2012 at 12:32 PM.
WhyYouLittle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:24 PM   #11
Stevie G
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London,England
Posts: 8,996
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
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.

Spinks was one of the best ever Light-Heavies of all. At heavyweight though,he may have been the linear champ for nearly three years,but I don't think he was ever the BEST heavyweight. Conn was a great light heavy who could give heavies a battle. Like yourself,I say Conn but only just.
Stevie G is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2012, 12:48 PM   #12
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie G View Post
Spinks was one of the best ever Light-Heavies of all. At heavyweight though,he may have been the linear champ for nearly three years,but I don't think he was ever the BEST heavyweight. Conn was a great light heavy who could give heavies a battle. Like yourself,I say Conn but only just.
In beating Holmes he beat the best and earned that title until he "lost" the rematch, imo.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 06:22 PM   #13
ThinBlack
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,384
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Conn by just a hair over Spinks. Lets see Michael take that title if he faced Pinklon Thomas, or Tony Tubbs.
ThinBlack is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 06:36 PM   #14
RockyJim
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,352
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Billy Conn...he had a prime Joe Louis beaten until he got careless in their fight in June 1941.
...he also beat 10 future or former world champions...plus he won the Lt.Heavy title and gave it up to campaign as a heavyweight...I'll take a prime Conn against Spinks...
RockyJim is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 06:44 PM   #15
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,869
vCash: 75
Default Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

Luf lays the case for Conn brilliantly.

It's fair, but for me Spinks actually pulling off that incredible feat of claiming the light heavy and heavyweight championships puts him higher.

In a bout between the two, Conn on points is where I'd lean.

EDIT: Oh, no!!! I've been ThinBlacked
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013