Could Billy Conn have carried Roy Jones's jockstrap

He is awkward on film vs Louis, that's the only positive thing that my eyes are telling me when I wach it. As for getting an opinion about fighters based almost exclusively on their record... Ok, I won't say a word about that.

 

There's how much footage of Bob Pastor and which of it impressed you so much that you called him superb boxer? If you base that opinion on Louis fights, then I don't know what superlatives you would use to describe fighters who *actually* looked good and clever.

 

You can’t have an era where there are no contenders, which is what you are basically arguing here.

 

I'm argueing the era was very weak and was able to produce very few if any challengers for Louis, the title of "contender" being meaningless in most cases, thus the title for the "club", although I admit it appeared in late 1940 or early 1941, ie after Louis had defeated Pastor for the 2nd time. But except for two writers from New York Post, who picked Pastor to beat Louis, everyone else was debating only how many rounds it would take Louis to stop Pastor. Same as was with boxers who were included in the club later.

 

Isn’t there a bit of circular logic going on there?

It might be that the era produced so few effective challengers for Louis, simply because he was that good.

So who was actually given a chance against Louis?

Schmeling for obvious reasons.

Nova, but mainly before Galento pounded him.

Conn in the rematch, partly because people thought that he might age better than Louis.

Walcott in the rematch, for obvious reasons.

 

I pointed out Bob Pastor wouldn't have much of a chance against any other heavyweight champion in history, thus there's no circular logic.

Not everyone who wasn't given a chance was named a bum, of course. I recall a write-up where it was questioned whether Conn should have been considered another bum of the month prior to his first meeting with Louis, and the answer was an obvious no, not a bum by any means, not that they were giving him a chance vs Louis, but they thought the size disparity was just too large even for such excellent boxer as Conn to overcome it.

 

The point is there can be vast difference in class between two "best challengers available" at different points of time and/or different weight divisions. Just because somebody is called a "contender" doesn't mean he is necessarily a very good boxer.

 

Yes and this difference is ultimately impossible to prove.

 

By your logic if you took a random man from the street and put him in the ring with Joe Louis, he would have absolutely the same chance of success as, say, Jersey Joe Walcott. You can't prove it wrong, can you? That is like the old joke about the probability of meeting a dinosaur.

 

Well no, but it would be reasonable to assume that the #1 ranked heavyweight contender, would have a better chance than a man picked off the street, or indeed somebody ranked outside the top ten.

You could not assume that the #1 contender from a different era would beat Walcott, without actually holding the fight.

 

I stated a case where Joe Walcott was ranked the same as Bob Pastor when he met Joe Louis, ie Ring's #2 at heavyweight.

Ok, random pick of those ratings...

Ring magazine ratings for the month ending September 15, 1939:
Heavyweights:
World's Champion--Joe Louis
1--Tony Galento
2--Bob Pastor
3--Lou Nova
4--Tommy Farr
5--Max Schemling
6--Johnny Paychek
7--Red Burman
8--Maurice Strickland
9--Nathan Mann
10--Patsy Perroni

Ring magazine ratings for the month ending November 23, 1960:
Heavyweights:
World Champion--Floyd Patterson
1--Sonny Liston
2--Ingemar Johansson
3--Eddie Machen
4--Zora Folley
5--Henry Cooper
6--Mike DeJohn
7--Robert Cleroux
8--Alex Miteff
9--**** Richardson
10--Billy Hunter

Would the fighters from the first top10 list have the same chance of beating Louis as the fighters from the second top10 list? Or would some fighters from the 1960 rankings have a considerably/significantly better chance of beating Louis had they met as-is, than the 1939 contenders?

 

Take away Liston, and the 1939 top ten is significantly better.