Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound?

McGrain · 08-03-2012, 09:01 AM

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?

lufcrazy · 08-03-2012, 09:12 AM

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.

McGrain · 08-03-2012, 09:18 AM

Haha, great post.

Legend X · 08-03-2012, 09:36 AM

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.

McGrain · 08-03-2012, 09:37 AM

Who do you think has the single best two victories between the two?

Legend X · 08-03-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

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.

McGrain · 08-03-2012, 09:53 AM

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.

Legend X · 08-03-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrain

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.

lufcrazy · 08-03-2012, 10:27 AM

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.

WhyYouLittle · 08-03-2012, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

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.

Stevie G · 08-03-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

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.

lufcrazy · 08-03-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stevie G

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.

ThinBlack · 10-10-2012, 06:22 PM

Conn by just a hair over Spinks. Lets see Michael take that title if he faced Pinklon Thomas, or Tony Tubbs.

RockyJim · 10-10-2012, 06:36 PM

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...

Flea Man · 10-10-2012, 06:44 PM

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

08-03-2012, 09:01 AM	#1
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,260 vCash: 1000	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?
Top

08-03-2012, 09:12 AM	#2
lufcrazy requiescat in pace East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, Up North Posts: 22,722 vCash: 330	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.
Top

08-03-2012, 09:18 AM	#3
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,260 vCash: 1000	Re: Michael Spinks or Billy Conn, who ranks higher pound-for-pound? Haha, great post.
Top

08-03-2012, 09:36 AM	#4
Legend X Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,105 vCash: 1000	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.
Top

08-03-2012, 09:37 AM	#5
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,260 vCash: 1000	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?
Top

08-03-2012, 09:53 AM	#7
McGrain Diamond Dog East Side VIP Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 63,260 vCash: 1000	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.
Top

08-03-2012, 10:27 AM	#9
lufcrazy requiescat in pace East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, Up North Posts: 22,722 vCash: 330	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.
Top

10-10-2012, 06:22 PM	#13
ThinBlack Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,974 vCash: 1000	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.
Top

10-10-2012, 06:36 PM	#14
RockyJim Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,268 vCash: 1000	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...
Top

10-10-2012, 06:44 PM	#15
Flea Man มวยสากล East Side VIP Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: @ferociousflea Posts: 44,065 vCash: 75	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
Top