Cause Conn had a greater set of wheels than Burley who would be ill-suited for a great hitting heavyweight as Louis...A prime Louis [ala Baer] was FAST and deadly, and only by scooting away from him could Burley last even a few rounds...And Burley was not a mover as the bigger Conn was, until Conn's ego got the best of him in the 13th round...One other point : The Joe Louis of the Max Baer fight stops Billy Conn much, much sooner...As Louis would have demolished the 155-60 pound great but more stationary Burley...Harry Greb's name was mentioned by someone in this thread...Greb had the STYLE that would be most difficult for Louis as his speed afoot was uncanny ,bouncing like a rubber ball, never in the same spot for a second, and striking from impossible angles...He NEVER it was described,"gave his opponent the ball "...But against the Louis of the Baer fight ???
Points made and well received Burt...I have to agree for the most part. But will say that Conn did employ more foot movement, but Burley excelled at moving the upperbody and the feet too (have a look at the film)...and I would say that Burley was the better defensive fighter. But...against the prime Louis (ie Baer) no way does Burley last long, nor Conn, and against that Louis, not even Greb...regardless of style. I was thinking that if Conn could last against the Louis of '41 who tried to come in under 200lbs, and was somewhat overconfident, that Burley could have maybe lasted a similar distance....but even with that said, I wouldn't pick against Louis...too dangerous a technical striker.
Louis at his best were his prime bouts against Schmeling, Lewis and his second bout with Buddy Baer. Louis at his worst or at lease one of his worst is his first bout with Conn. As per Louis he trained down under 200 pounds beCause he was hearing Conn would come in under 170. He did not want the announcer saying Louis 200 plus fighting a man under 170. He was weak and Conn brought his A game. Prime Louis starches Conn or Burley. Also weight matters most with the lower divisions. The difference in power between a welter and middleweight as an example can be significant. In the hwt division it means less as you can tell looking at history. How many fast smaller hwts dismantled much bigger more powerful fighters? If you know how to punch the speed that can come with a more compact size can be deadly to the larger more ponderous opponent.
I agree H that in a heavyweight division weight differfences mean less than any other weight class. Nat Fleischer and other men of his time would write that a man 200 or so pounds with the right talent could defeat any heavyweight much heavier. What a 250 pound heavyweight gains in strength and heft, he loses in speed and flexibility...Take wrestling for example. We see great powerful 250 pound American wrestlers but the greatest acknowledged wrestler in American history was Frank Gotch who beat everyone he wrestled legitimate style...Frank Gotch was about 200-5 pounds only.... And I feel that for example Joe louis at his cobra best would be big enough to beat anyone bigger than him. What nature gives, nature takes away...
you got a point here burt. if i look at both the top 10 heavies and 10 team heavies h2h, names like ali (210-217), louis (210), frazier (205-210), tyson (212), lewis (230-240) would probably float around the top. lewis is the only big man in that list and he was EXCEPTIONAL at using his size properly and being quite physically fit in his prime. the rest of the list would probably have dempsey, marciano and holyfield who were smaller heavies who relied on speed, skill and fitness.
Louis best weight as per Louis was 202 and he typically fought in his prime under 200. Ali when he fought Liston in fight 2 was barely over 200 and his best prime weight on average is closer to 210. In the hwt division it's not about size it's about speed and skill...that is except in today's world of walking statues. Many would be surprised how outclassed the big guys today would be in the ring with much greater fighters such as Ali and Louis.