Conn vs. Moore at 175 15rds.

Moore was very adept at spoiling and drawing good technical boxers into brawls. He dealt with the likes of Harold Johnson, Willie Pastrano, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins, Holman Williams, Bert Lytell and others.

I think Conn's fighter's attitude is going to be both an advantage and a disadvantage here. I can't see him not trying to slug it out with Moore at some point but thanks to his granite chin and infighting ability, he won't have as difficult a time as for example Harold Johnson did.

Speed could at times bother Moore but Conn doesn't really have the power to hurt Moore as badly as Moore could hurt him. You could clearly see the difference in punching power between Moore and Maxim and probably also with Moore and Conn. One clean right hand counter might impress the judges more than a combination of punches from Conn. I see the crafty Archie Moore coming up with a decision win by close margins because of his ability to deal with boxers and movers.

 

This ones as tough a choice as i can ever think about
We must rate billy tip top prime at the tender age of 23 yrs and tipping the fairbanks at only 169lb

This vs the most wiley tricky cunning .....er the ring has ever seen!

 

Hmm who is the fastest fighter Moore has beat? he seemed to struggle with the faster men, but he had some good speed himself in his younger days

Moore is the more skilled, bigger, hard hitting man who is much more proven at the weight, although Conn obviously proved himself 1 way or another.

Which version of Moore would be prime? The Charles 3 version? The Johnson version?

 

Moore could hardly be classified as a "standup boxer puncher". He was nothing like a Harold Johnson in that regard. He fought more out of a crouch, leaning on the back leg for leverage, balance, and optimal range control in order to lure his opponents into making mistakes.

Conn didn't beat much resemblance to Charles, in my opinion, so that's not a very sound comparison. Charles was a bigger puncher and more athletic, if not quite the cutie that Conn could be at times. He defines the role of standup boxer puncher more than either Conn or Moore, though he was one of the very best ever at it.

If Moore could fight on even terms with Charles, even hurting him badly prior to getting cocked cold on the way in for the finish, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for him to do the same to Conn without the same negative result. Conn wasn't that kind of puncher.

 

Conn was far from a textbook technician like Harold Johnson. He made a lot of mistakes but could get away with them because of his ability to take punches and his speed.

Moore wouldn't box Conn, he would be a light heavyweight version of Henry Armstrong combined with the spoiling of Sammy Angott.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0oD0OV7br4[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATaP2TyF9U[/ame]


3:35

 

Moore was a technician, I never said otherwise and can't see how you come to a different conclusion. He was one of the most clever ring tacticians of all time. Probably the smartest of the great punchers, or at least on par with any of them.

I don't think you've read up much on the Moore/Charles fights if you hold that opinion, unless you've simple read far different breakdowns than myself. Moore was likely a bit pre-prime in the first bout, losing a clear decision. In the rematch, he lost a closer decision on the grounds of an earlier body shot knockdown that allowed Charles to gain the initiative for the rest of the way. In the last bout he had Charles on the brink of a knockout himself before Charles turned the tide at the last minute and KO'd an advancing Moore with a barrage of shots unexpectedly. In each bout Moore came closer to victory, but was unable to master the great Charles. Be that as it may, I don't think Conn presents the same difficulties that a Charles would, particularly in regards to the punching power that so often bettered Moore. I just don't think Conn holds those kinds of advantages. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a very closely contested bout, I just wouldn't give Conn any kind of notable advantage.

 

Moore is my pick.

 

I don't see any indication that Moore had trouble with good boxers. Charles was a boxer-puncher who greatly relied on his power, especially at the time Moore faced him when Charles was squarely at his peak while Moore was yet to hit his, before the Sam Baroudi tragedy. Conn is not going to present the same problems for Moore as Charles did. Charles kept Moore honest with his power and Moore couldn't use his aggressive spoiling tactics.

 

I hope people realize that Conn was more than just an outside stick-and-move boxer.
I know boxing lore has him doing that against Joe Louis, and that's understandable.
Conn was actually a great all-round boxer, great on the inside, he could box, brawl and fight from every range, technically superb in every department. The only thing he lacked was a powerful punch. He was incredibly tough and durable.

 

A great matchup Billy Conn vs Archie Moore in their primes..Billy Conn I will guess would have been an 8-5 favorite over Moore in 1940-1941...Conn was so dominate a figure about that time..He licked such fighters at that time as Melio Bettina,Gus Lesnevich,Gunnar Barlund,and stopped the highly rated heavyweight Bob Pastor, who gave Louis a couple of tough bouts...I think I woulkd pick Conn over Moore at that time,because Conn could really move and was very tough and conditioned...Conn by decision...P.S. I also think that Bob Pastor, a small heavyweight would have outpointed the smaller Archie Moore also...Ezzard Charles vs Billy Conn? hmm.......

 

Exactly.

Also Moore was a very adept pressure fighter. Look at the way he pressured Maxim constantly when he won the LHW title, it was a joy to behold.

Conn will try to move and box, but due to Archie's pressure and tactics Conn will stand and trade. Now Conn's speed and combinations will definitly get him some points but Archie will be landing the harder blows and also IMO has the better defence on the inside. I think in the end it will be a close decision to Moore, much like TGA sees it.