Was Billy Conn-Joe Louis I a meeting between the p4p #1 and #2?

interesting

 

Are we sure they would be 1&2? Do you necessarily even have to move Armstrong down from #1 just because he lost to Fritzie Zivic? If you do, then who has better victories around that time than Fritzie Zivic himself, who beat Armstrong twice, and then Angott. I'm not sure we even have to move Armstrong down from #1. Maybe just move Zivic up to #2 on the strength of his victories.

I think people are a little too quick to move someone down over one loss, like they did when Pac lost to Bradley, even though everyone knew it was a farce. At the same time, people will keep other guys at their high place until they lose, while their skills have clearly deteriorated, ex. Martinez.

 

I believe to hold the number one p4p slot you must look good in winning unless going against another top tiered performer.
It is quite possible Louis Conn was 1 vs 2

 

Could be, an interesting though at least. What's a cully cove?

 

Who cares. Louis was in there with a middleweight.

 

Taking it a bit further, given that Conn actually outboxed Louis for the most of the first fight and that he was the smaller fighter by quite a bit, is it possible that Louis Conn II would have actually had Conn as P4P no 1 ahead of joe Louis?

Or am i using the modern internet revision theory a bit too much on that one:tired

 

Let's not make too big a deal of Zivic beating Angott. Sammy was the naturally smaller man and didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Fritzie. He was made to order for Zivic.

 

That being said, I have to agree with you, McGrain. Interesting post! Never even considered that.

 

Ken Overlin.

 

I really don't know about that. Is the pound for pound list supposed to reflect who has the best current record, who is on the best win streak, or who is actually the best boxer.? The best boxer was still Armstrong.

If a loss is all it takes to move someone down then it couldn't accurately reflect the talents of guys like Ezzard Charles or Dick Tiger who had a lot of losses but were still excellent fighters. You'd have guys who took no challenges above guys with lots of good opposition. There's all kinds of guys whose record doesn't reflect how good they are. Orlando Salido for instance who has about twelve losses but took everybody's darling Lomachenko to church.

I know that now, when everyone is supposed to have an unblemished perfect record one loss moves you off the rankings, but I wonder if it would have mattered as much back then when everyone picked up losses.

Besides, just moving someone because they had a loss never made sense to me. That doesn't take into consider the circumstances of the fight. I think a case could be made for moving Maidana up based on how close he came to beating Floyd in their first fight. I saw no reason to move Pacquiao down when he was robbed by Bradley or when Marquez knocked him out because Marquez is right at his level and he showed no signs of deteriorating skills in the fight.

What do you do when the better fighter loses because it's just a bad style match up and the lesser guy has his number? When they avenge a loss do you just put them back where they were?

Questions like these are why the pound for pound lists so rarely accurately reflect who the best in the sport is.

 

Its an interesting theory and Conn probably has as good a claim as anyone to the number 2 spot.
Wins over Bettina x2 Lesnevich x2,Apostoli x2
Krieger x2,contenders and fringe contenders like Pastor,McCoy, Dorazio,Savold,Knox ,Barlund. Compare favourably with any others imo.