How would you compare Dimitry Bivol to Billy Conn?

I wish I had some hidden away, it’d only assure me more, in that short highlights you can see, in his resume you can see and in the opinions of all the other greats you can see… Bivol looks like they took an amateur and sent him in for a 12 rounder, such is modern boxing, Bivins, Conn, Moore and Charles would all give him a prolonged beating… IMO so it is what it is.

 

Exactly what I have always thought!

In that clip, we have all seen, where Conn really tears into Louis, he looks sensational... but other than that, not so much.

The idea that Bivol is an amateur now fighting for money, and would be slapped around by a real pro like Conn... Well, I don't really know what to say, as it's difficult to take a statement like that seriously!

 

In a way, all the footage we have of Conn is from the least ideal sources - Bettina was an awkward southpaw & Louis is, well, Louis.

1 inference that I think we can draw from Conn's footage (even the Bettina fight) is that he has more pop in his punches than Bivol - he was able to keep Bettina under control w/ very selective, well-placed counterpunches rather than the combos & flurries that Bivol usually relies on to win fights.

 

Both men are of central middle eastern descent. Conn's surname was from Khan, where Attila 'The Hunnic Mongol' Kabul Khan had invaded there, and Bivol had a surname stretching back to the time of the Ibn El Bivol O'Malley, black Irishites of the middlest order, had occupied the region, perfecting mustache smelting and the first postal system.

 

If Bivol can barely handle 40 year old Beterbiev and Canelo what do you think prime Louis would do to him? I think Conn is overrated in rankings of Louis's era but the man was the only one to fight prime Louis to a standstill over what today would be a full fight. Hes 4-0 against Louis opponents even if they are lower end ones. Different level than Bivol. Theres criticisms to be made when comparing Conn to fighters on that level but hes on it and Bivol is not.


Conns KO rate is 30 points lower than Bivols but if you give Bivol Conns competition that probably evens out. Conns KO rate also substantially improved when he went to HW even if it was improving from single digits. A big question about Bivol is whether or not he could keep so and so off him and Conn while a point fighter had enough to do this.

The other big knock on Conn is his resume which is very short at the high end level but he still has nearly 20 high level wins when Bivols got 24 period. A lot of these high end wins are against MWs but some of them are against HWs. Conns got 11 losses but his main career was the 24-2 run to end his career. Bivol is 24-1 with the close Beterbiev and Canelo fights. Conns weaknesses are more glaring when being compared to combo fighters from the early 20th century who fought a higher SOS at LHW/HW over a much longer time. Guys who if from an adjacent era might have done better against common opponents. This doesn't really matter in a comparison with Bivol.

 

The funny thing to remember about Bivol is that he's always up on his toes. His balance and movement are more important for him than sitting down on punches and causing damage. The difference in power punching between heels planted and up on your toes is massive. That right hand of his does look pretty potent though, and the people who've fought him attest to his deceptive power. If he sat down on his punches like he tried to do in his early career it's possible that his KO% would be higher and he'd have an easier time dissuading aggressive opponents.

 

I love Canelo but that fight wasn't close. Bivol very clearly won that.

 

yep, complete @$$whipping that was.

 

I never really thought to compare them to be honest.

Bivol is a classic Soviet style fighter, with that whipping jab, and style emphasizing economy of effort.

Con was a more offensively orientated fighter, grounded more in the Western school of pugilism.

If the question is who was better, the answer is what do ya like?

 

I actually do see some fundamental mistakes I wouldn't see Bivol make. (Id be happy to point them out)

He has a flashy style, though. He's moving around so much to get Louis off balance, by the way. I can see why it impresses people. It's probably the right way to fight Bivol

 

To me it’s just… one of them is an amateur fighting for money and the other is a real pro.

 

Conn was sloppy without the pop to back it up.

Bivol would school him.

 

Really doubt he beats a fresh Saad Muhammad, Qawi, Mustafa Muhammad, ,Galindez, or Marvin Johnson TBH. And those fighters are NOT the best the Lt.heavy division has to offer. Talent wise the division had a very rich history.
I've seen nothing from Bivol that suggest he'd be able to handle pressure fighters like those men I named.
Especially how he reacted when he faced Beterbiev's very basic pressure. Backing straight up, head always at one level, a lot of arm punches with no snap to them.
Does Bivol beat a Leslie Stewart? Don Lalonde? Bobby Czyz? Yaqui Lopez? Mike Rossman? which in my opinion he's much more closer to in ability than the best the division had to offer.

 

Maybe if they’re at the olympics Bivol the great amateur.

 

I think Bivol would do well against the breadline crew, too.