Larry Holmes (1985) vs Billy Conn (1941)

Holmes, by decision most likely.

 

Billy Conn would be difficult but I still thinks Holmes stops him late. Conn would be going into the ring at 170ish pounds and Spinks bulked up to 200+ pounds to fight Holmes. A 170ish pound Spinks already hit harder than Conn, so no doubt a 200 pound Spinks hit harder than a 170ish pound Conn. I think Holmes size and strength would wear him down for a late round stoppage.

 

Billy Conn was listed at 184 against Louis. I've heard it claimed variously that he was 172 (I think) or even as low as 168, but I've never seen any reason given (that I can recall) to support this. That doesn't mean it's not true of course, but as far as I'm aware there's no reason not to think he was the weight he's listed as.

Edit: Boxrec says he was 182, so I misrembered by two pounds. It also says he was 190 and 188 in his next two fights.

 

This would have been a very tough fight for Larry Holmes in his 1985 rendition. Conn was very fast and skilled and not easily stopped. Larry didn’t have all that much snap left in his punches by that point anyway... I narrowly picked him to win a decision on the poll by virtue of his reach, jab and ring savvy but it’s by no means a given.... truthfully I’d give the May 1986 Larry who charged at spinks in the rematch with a vengeance a better chance than the complacent 1985 version

 

I never heard any claims that Conn was anything other than listed in the lower half of the 170's, but actually many felt yes late 160's.
I do not think he was around let alone over 180, I wonder if box rec can be as inexact & innacurate as so many "Tale of the Tapes".
Either way Conn had a lot less weight & muscle than a HW Spinks.
Where for example for Ali vs. Liston you can find a number of contradictory claims about the measurements of both fighters.

The most glaring is Ali listed in one as having an 18" calf-no way-& another a 9" wrist-again, no way, especially on such a lean fighter, that would mean a massive bone structure-which was not Ali.
Though something like measuring a bit up the forearm instead at the wrist's narrowest point could easily do this...

 

Holmes finds himself falling behind
and has to step it up. As in the Louis fight, Conn starts to go in overly confident and on the attack, but pays the price.
Holmes by ko 12.

 

I believe Muhammad Ali was 212 lbs for the first Sonny Liston fight in 1964, Liston was 218 lbs.

 

By no means as it has been sais, not a walk in the park for the 1985 version of Larry Holmes vs 1941 version of Billy Conn. Billy would be out speeding thislumbering version of Larry, who looked very vulnerable against Carl The Truth Williams, in May 1985. But Larry's weight and leaning on Conn would be the determining factor, heading into the late rounds. Holmes comes out of with a decision win. Larry's once great left jab would be off target many times during this contest against the quick mobile Conn.

 

Clay was 210 1/2

 

Ali had very big bone structure in legs, he had big legs

 

I usually agree with you Chalieft.
But compared to HWs, then or especially today, Ali did not have a particularly large bone structure.
And his legs were decent, not really big...Take Joe Frazier, who was bulkier in his lower body despite being much shorter...And Tyson more so, & Tua even more than that...

Anyway he may have larger ankles than wrist...But I said that no way he had a 9" wrist.
Unless you are obeseor it is measured incorrectly, not at the most narrow part...
That is huge.
6" is small for a man. No more than 7" is average. 8" is large by any normal standard. 9" is uncommon & fairly huge.

 

Frazier and Tua had tank legs, Ali had big legs but not that type of huge compact legs.

Ok you was talking about wrist then, here his wrist is listed at 7 " 3/4?, but holmes with 8" sounds a bull****, he was more narrow than Ali
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45521998@N00/6927145029

 

I'll be damned, I checked the fight and sure enough the ring announcer says Conn weighed in at 174. I'm kicking myself because I've watched that fight in full twice. (I tend to zone out during the ring announcements.)

This content is protected

 

Ali had big legs for a normal man, not so much for a HW at the time-though they were good sized then.
Not so much for today at all.

Those Tale of the Tapes are so often wrong.
Just Tyson & Holyfield listed as only 44" regular & 46" expanded chest seems off, though having lower body fat reduced even upper body size a bit.

Also the wrist is a small measurement, if you do it without precision-or in the wrong place-a small numerical error = a large percentage error.
Just rounding off numbers screws things up.