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.

 

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.

 

I'd say Spinks has the best single victory. Beating an officially 48-0 Holmes.

 

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.

 

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.

 

:good 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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...

 

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 atsch :-(