Billy Conn...Who else could he have gone 13 rds with?

Take the Conn of the first Louis fight and put him in with the guys who make up your top 10 @ HW.

How many on your list do you see him being up on the cards against after 13 rounds or even surviving that long?

Looking back at that fight, the mind boggles with his achievement.

Did Joe have an off night or was Billy just that good and all wrong for Louis?

My current 10... based on H2H

Ali
Holmes
Louis
Lewis
Johnson
Liston
Foreman
Tyson
Marciano
Frazier

I honestly cannot see Billy repeating the same feat against the other 9 guys in my list.

Thoughts?

 

Johnson is a little high on your H2H list there. Though he is hard to rank since his time had different rules.

I think he could last 13 with Ali and Holmes. He might even give Holmes a good bit of trouble.

 

Peer-on-peer was not the way I was considering it. Actually a new concept for me when measuring H2H. I always imagine it mano a mano against everyone through the ages.

Against his peers in his time, the man was a beast. And I actually think he could school plenty of better heavyweights if they had to fight using his ruleset.

Almost a different sport.

 

tunney

 

If Louis had not intentionally dried himself out to come in under 200 for the fight, Conn probably wouldn't have gone 13 with Louis anyway.

 

Both.

 

I could see an argument for Conn going 13 with every man on that list.

I would give Tyson the best shot of an early blitz.

 

Ali, Foreman, Holmes for starters I think he was any less capable than Michael Spinks....I dont think Conn would last as long against Marciano,Tyson or Frazier because of pressure

 

I'll take weird, complicated and confusing any day over regurgitated stock opinions. It actually has me thinking -- which fighters were far above the rim peer-vs-peer and why? Just an athletic, physical abberation -- ring generalship that was perfect for that time (B.Leonard) but not neccessarily for other eras or perhaps technique or style.

I feel if we made a list of the best peer-on-peer fighters of all-time that physical advantages would take a backseat generally to mental advantages.

There's a concept in poker called levelling. It basically means it's good to figure out a way to think one level above your opponent. But not two. That could lead to shooting yourself in the foot. You should also not underestimate your opponent. An example would be to throw a slow punch as a switch-up, and have your clever opponent reflex himself away and back before it's there.

If you transfer this concept to boxing, if it would apply, it would mean that though someone dominated an era, it doesn't necessarily mean he would be similarly effective in other eras, which is something I believe. Success in boxing is highly situational in my estimation.

I keep thinking about Benny Leonard, who manhandled his era with a confident broom, sweeping aside everyone with that weird stance. Even Robinson, who held physical advantages but was a calculating devil to compound on it.

I like the concept.

/mindfart

 

I like this concept. Never used as a criterion before and is very significant. It might actually resolve or at least help organize some issues like size difference between HW eras for example. Or difference in weight management. Really useful.

 

I have often been a bit baffled by the fixation that people critical of Louis have with the Conn fight. Its not exactly the worst performance that can be laid at his door IMHO. I guess that people who are critical of Louis often place a high premium on size, and Conn was small, even if he was an all time great.

The same people never even mention Louis’s lacklustre performance vs Arturo Goddoy, who really was a fighter who got mixed results when he stepped up. This is a much more damaging performance to my mind, but it slips under their radar, because Goddoy wasn’t particularly small.

I guess that it should not be a shock that I think differently to these people, because we have reached very different conclusions.