Conn weighed in at 182. Remind me again what the evidence is behind the claim that his "real" weight was below 170? I know I've heard before and found it very unconvincing, but maybe it will be more persuasive the second time around.
You really think Quarry or Patterson or Leon Spinks or Ibragimov would dominate Conn? If so all I can say is I really, really wish we had a time machine and could place a large wager on that, and hope you believe my sincerity in this desire if nothing else.
If I somebody can beat the top fighters in the heavyweight division, without them being subject to any weight restriction, then I consider him to be a heavyweight.
Just what I've read in numerous books pertaining to the fight. They announced Conn at the heavier weight so the public wouldn't think it would be a mismatch. I got no problem with your train of thought. Can he do it constantly through the yrs though? That I dont know.
With regard to Conn's weight for the Louis fight, lets look at his other recorded pre war weights, at heavyweight: 173.5 against Henry Cooper, while he was still fighting at light heavy. 174 against Bob Pastor. 178 against Gunnar Barlund. Just under 176 against Tony Zale. I would say that 174 against Joe Louis sounds plausible! This is a bit on the light side for a light heavyweight of the era. Tommy Loughran came in over 180 when he was not making weight. Having said that, Michael Spinks was coming in around 170, right up to when he stepped up to heavyweight. Conn is just about big enough to be successful in any era.
Didn't have any of those guys in mind but I would have gladly accepted that Patterson bet. What is it that you see in either man that makes you feel so confident that Conn would have won that one?
Remember, he doesn't he beat Patterson (he probably wouldn't) he just has to avoid being dominated "with very little difficultly".
