Conn vs. Moore at 175 15rds.

I believe Billy conn, because of his fleetness of foot,would have decisioned Archie Moore.. I think Prime Billy Conn of the first Louis bout in 1941, was with Ezzard Charles the two best lightheavies, since Gene Tunney...Conn was tough, fast and very combative, when needed....Billy by dec.

 

Conn by dec.

 

I see it the same. Conn by decision.

 

im not so sure. conn was wrong for louis, it dont make him as good as louis since he didnt win either fight. conn was some tough hombre though, theres no way either man gets kayoed here. I give archie a good shot at winning this. conn was fast, tough and skilled but he did like to duke it out and peak archie was good enough and crafty enough to turn things his way. archie was expert at drawing guys in and had a good reach and defence- he was more consistant at 175, I dont see moore going the distance with tony zale like conn did. conn had a classic style and was a left hook merchant which was easier to read than say moores crouchy, weaving bag of tricks with two hand power. sometimes thats the difference. Ask yourself who would you rather fight?

 

When I look at Billy dancing in and out with ease, handing useful southpaw champion Bettina a boxing lesson, I just don't see Moore having an answer for that. As hard as Archie hit, he couldn't have done the job with a single shot, and he might have had to here. Beyond that, Conn could punch much harder than 15 stoppage wins in 77 bouts suggest, as Pastor found out. Billy would probably have to climb off the deck at some point, but he could do that, and go on to win the decision.

Take a look at the group photograph of the inaugural IBHOF class of 1990. Conn and Moore are standing at opposite ends of the back row. Billy looks nearly as tall as Ali and Foster, although his listed height was 6'1-1/2" to Archie's 5'11". (Foster is standing next to Moore. A shock to realize that was nearly 20 years ago. Napoles, Ali, Griff, Foster, Jake and Carmen are still with us.)

 

conn knocked out bigger guys but not many his own size. I put it down to the 6oz theory. gloves are now 10 oz. back then a KO punch in 6oz horse hair was a KO punch if it came from a faster guy and you didnt see it coming and it didnt matter if it was from a 170 pounder. Two good fast guys the same size see evrything coming, conn fought a lot of good fighters his own size but couldnt catch them as blind as he could the slower big guys. However Archie fought as many fast guys his own size and was still the best knockout artist there was!

 

Archie Moore wins this one for me

 

:adminThey both lose to '89 Michael Moorer. Sorry guys, controversy follows my every post.

 

:thinkHmmm...Well, Moorer was knocked out by Archie's protege, and Conn did win two title fights against a southpaw champion. Hopefully you get some entertaining responses to this though.:good

 

the guy was very good for a short time but didnt hang out anywhere near long enough at 175 to be taken seriously. name one great or even capable lightheavy MOORER did fight? To be considered he has to have proved some kind of legacy in the LH devision, its no good saying beacuse he put weight on and competed sucsesfully at a higher weight proves he could do it without the speed edge against another great LH.

 

I love Billy Conn but Arhie was the best....Archie close NOD

 

Moore once asked Conn
"How come we didn't fight when we were middleweights"?
"Because you weren't good enough"!!
They didn't call him brash Billy for nothing

 

Agreed. Moore and Conn didn't have the tools to trouble Moorer. Only the upper echelon greats of the division, like past prime former splinter champion Leslie Stewart, were capable of that. Moorer really proved himself at the weight. Talk about being thrown to the wolves.

 

I personally rate Harold Johnson higher than Billy Conn, and Moore winning 4 out of 5 fights in that series is proof enough that he was capable of dealing with a fighter of Conn's caliber. Johnson was the better technical boxer of the two, in my opinion. Conn was a very well rounded fighter, underrated on the inside (which is where I think he did his most impressive work against Louis, actually), and a well disciplined on the outside. I don't think he'd be able to master Moore, though, who wasn't nearly as limited as is sometimes made out, in reference to his chances against the best pure boxers. A ripe for the picking version, well aged over 40, was still able to hold one of the smoothest Light Heavies of all time in Willie Pastrano to a draw. Would be a good, close fight either way, but I think Moore at his best has a little too much for Conn. A KO isn't out of the realms of possibility, either.