Billy Conn v. 1991 heavyweights

He beats Tucker, Moorer, Witherspoon, Mercer.

Ruddock and Foreman is a toss up. But I'd favor Conn

 

Nope...with a big capital "N" :dead


Sorry that's all I got for you on this one.

 

So he beats the 6'5 undefeated Tucker who Tyson fought to a ten rounder huh? And foremans a toss up with Ruddock another giant at 240 ? :-((


Did anyone mention conn was also a 140 pounder? :nut

 

OP said vs 1991

 

And? What will that change?

 

Tucker and Spoon weren't as good in 91.

 

Tucker still went the distance with Lewis after 91? From 89 to 92 he had 14 fight win streak and beat McCall .Withspoon is really the only guy and I don't see anything in /conn that's going to out slick him,hes has a win over Williams and hes also a lengthy boxer at 6'3...good enough for me.

 

Personally I see Conn outpointing those guys.

 

So because they're bigger, thats your rational for them being able to beat Conn? The guys are all slower and far less accurate than Louis was and I doubt any hit as hard. Without delving to deeply into this nor picking winners or losers, you reasoning simply doesnt involve any kind of boxing logic.

 

Well being smaller against him certainly isn't an advantage is it?...do you think Conn is a better boxer than Witherspoon who once out pointed Holmes to lose a decision?Yep no boxing logic at all :roll:


Tell me where Conn would rank in the 90's? This should good considering he wouldn't even past a Bernard Hopkins let alone a 90's killers HW rowe here.... artytime

 

You don't seem to understand that the Spoon who fought Holmes was not the same in 91

 

I don't have to understand..you are trying to sell a former guy who was once 140 pounds with only a 20% k.o record to beat massive technical,moving boxers of the 90's,if that's not fantasy land material I don't know what is? Maybe Jab will agree to that because he thinks 200 pounders will push around 250 ones but im to smart for such hilarious comparisons. Conn looked good a few times maybe against Honey boy jones or whatever that guys name was,who was another average fighter but I know better...

 

Do I think Conn is a better boxer than Spoon? Absolutely! And again, you size infatuation means nothing. Styles make fights. Its why lightheavyweight Spinks could move up in weight, still be more than 20lbs lighter than Holmes and beat him. That you just dismiss all this is laughable.

As far as who Conn would or wouldnt beat....I havent put much thought into it. When I do though I'll be taking a lot more into consideration than just size. As history proves, size can be trumped by skill and heart. Conn was short in neither department.

 

Read the above post I made,yes only you would buy into conn as the better boxer,frazier is a technical wizard in your world..:yep ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

P.s Spinks never beat holmes but hey whatever you WISH to believe and certainly wasn't a natural 170 pounder like Conn was...still waiting on where Conn is ranked,maybe over Ruddock I guess since we all know Conn can do 19 rounds with Tyson??? :nut