Archie Moore vs Billy Conn (175lbs) 15

Well im not sure who would win since your question is so vague and your not being specific of a certain version of either fighter.

Statistic wise on the other hand there's no comparison so in this sense alone Moore with 185w, 131ko, 11d 23l blows Conn out of the water with his 63w ,11l , 1d, 14ko.

 

I think Moore would destroy Billy Conn, brutalizing him along the way and setting him up for a coup de graz type finish somewhere around the 9th round.
To be honest I don't think they'd ever even let these guys fight...you know the TV networks wouldn't want to air it. They don't want to see young, clean cut kids like Billy Conn going out there and getting manhandled by old man Archie, looking like he jost got home from busting concrete all day...
Nope. No sir. Not at all

 

Archie Moore takes this

 

In Heart of San Diego Archie claimed Conn wasn't keen on fighting him. Might be misremembering the names.

 

I saw that interview as well. Moore died 6 months after the interview took place.

 

Give me Archie Moore. Fight is probably competitive TBH, but Moore I think, is the favorite

 

I got Conn by decision.

 

Seemed content. It was heartwarming to see him mention ABC as his most important legacy.

 

Moore and Johnston, his manager tried to make this fight in the mid 40's, but Conn wasn't interested.

Here is a piece with Archie Moore asking Conn why they never fought around the time of the Patterson fight.

Shortly after the weigh-in for his heavyweight title fight with Floyd Patterson last Friday in Chicago, Archie Moore ran into Billy Conn just as the two were leaving the Chicago Stadium.

"How come," Ancient Archie asked Billy, "I never fought you along the way? I thought I fought 'em all these past 21 years. You're one guy I missed."

"I'll tell you how come," Billy replied. "You just weren't good enough to fight me, that's all!"
https://imgur.com/mGSzxsV

 

Archie Moore was by far the better legacy fighter but this might be a tricky match for him. Conn was very fast and elusive. I’d have to think about this one

 

Hi Buddy.
Not getting your " so vague " comment, he named the fighters, stipulated the weight, and then set the distance, seems adequate information for the forum to digest and come up with who they think will win, also when fighters are pitched, what's wrong with doing so at their best , otherwise there are variants, age, breaks, weight, mind set, etc, seems the proper way to determine a result to me.
Above not meant as criticism of your post, of which I respect and appreciate, just trying to keep things simple.
stay safe BoB, chat soon.

 

Hi Mike, I understand that there is a non verbal agreement on the forum that when such post are asked it is automatically referring to the best versions of both fighters.
In this specific case I don't think this applies. Archie had a shaky record at first in LHW mostly beating fringe contenders. In 1946 alone he went 5-2-1 for example.
Was it the Archie that showed up be knocked out in the 1st round by Leonard Morrow with a 12-2 1 record?
Imagine this version of Archie showing up to fight the Billy that beat Fred Apostoli or Young Corbett.
Both fighters have their own depth at 175 and to say -not you but the original poster- " Archie Moore vs Billy Conn at 175lbs) 15 " is pretty vague imo.
This kind of post can easily be taken into deep waters if the effort was there from the the op.. Imo this is just another lackluster thread from a lackluster poster.
No disrespect to you Mike.