lets say the war didn't interfere with anything and somehow they managed to make a fight between Conn and Charles at light heavyweight who do you have win
..when ray arcel was training ezzard charles he said "charles is billy conn with a punch." i go with ezzard though i think it would be a great fight.
Billy Conn, because he outboxed a prime Joe Louis for 12-13 rounds. Charles coudnt even outbox a 'slugger' Marciano???????
On the otherhand, Ezzard Charles beat Joe Louis and won the heavyweight title. As a lightheavy, I would rate Charles only behind Tunney. Moore and Conn right behind them.
I think that Billy Conn at his light heavy peak is just about as good as it gets at that weight, there or there about. I think that Ezzard Charles is actually one of the best fighters that ever lived at his respective peak though. I don't actually think there is much stylistic analysis to be made in this one. We're simply talking about two fighters who have the skills, the attributes, and will put those skills to the test against one another, we'd see it all in this fight, and I can't call it.
But we do have footage of them and it's very clear Conn presents a stylistic nightmare for Charles. Even worse, we have footage of Charles in his prime, while Conn was only 23 when he stopped Pastor and nearly stopped prime Louis, too. Given the proposed scenario, he would have filled out and improved by the time he met Charles, who would not be at his best. Conn by wide UD, or even TKO. In either event, Charles hits the deck.
that makes zero sense. And it makes perfect sense: Arcel also said Dempsey would KO Tyson in two rounds. Zero irony.
Charles was better, but in this scenario, with this hypothetical Conn and Charles, I pick Conn. Charles was not at his best pre-WWII and seems to have been burning out.
Do you mind explaining how Charles was better? I can accept he was a touch more dangerous offensively. But look how that worked out for Foreman against Ali. Wilder against Fury. Arguello against Fernandez. Braddock vs. Loughran. Conn at 23 was as much an over-sized Middleweight as he was an under-sized Light Heavyweight, but he was taking the Heavyweight division by storm. He gave the best version of Louis his toughest fight. Meanwhile, prime Charles vs. a creaking Louis is a snoozer. Guys inferior to Conn put Charles on the deck a lot.
The Louis Conn fought was certainly better than the one Charles fought, but he was drained, almost certainly stale from a hard schedule and was recently knocked our of the ring by Baer. What guys inferior to Conn put Charles down "a lot" when Charles was close to his best? Have you looked into Conn's fights at the lower weights? Some of his biggest wins were controversial decisions. Achievement wise Charles is way ahead with wins over the likes of Charley Burley and Archie Moore. There's not a ton of footage of Conn, he looks excellent against Louis, not so much against Bettina from what I recall.
I would love to see you prove any of that. It was Louis' best performance. What was wrong with Duran in Montreal? What was wrong with Fury in the Wilder rematch? Louis struggled with Conn because Conn was a gifted fighter who perfectly exploited Louis' short-comings. End of story. A simple websearch will yield results. There's actually a webpage which has catalogued every champion's KD's. Jimmy Bivins and Llyod Marshall for a start. Oh so we're going by acheivements! OK, so I guess Archie Moore is better than Ezzard Charles, too? Yes, when Conn was a teenager he was fighting the best in the world, while Charles was losing to guys like Kid Tunero (yeah, WHO!?!?) By 23 he was achieving things that Charles couldn't accomplish at that age, but things Charles wouldn't even accomplish in his full blown prime. 5 tries at Maxim, not a single stoppage. Conn broke down pastor. Look at Charles' fight with Pat Valenton. You really see that guy hearing the final bell against the kid who took it to Louis!? Fred Apostoli >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burley and Moore. You do realize Burley was amidst a heat with his arch rival Holman Williams? Don't wanna take too much away from Charles, but it's a lot like Gans vs. Langford, where an over-sized upstart defeated an unsuspecting opponent. Moore was green to the division when he met Charles, far from his legendary Championship run. And it's hard to gauge how good he really was as a Middleweight. Look at the dudes who beat a young Lewis or Wlad - would you still pick them to beat the prime version? If you researched the era, you'd see Conn's competition was better. Charles' just gets more attention because there's careers read like something from a Lifetime Movie.
