Could Billy Conn have carried Roy Jones's jockstrap

Bob Pastor beat a lot of highly-regarded men. Turkey Thompson, Jimmy Bivins, Lem Franklin, Roscoe Toles, among many others.
I'd be very surprised if all the reports of all those fights, or even the majority of them, disparage his skills or portray him as a nothing fighter.
It might be so, it just seems unlikely. To win so many times against so many rated fighters, someone must have noted he was doing a lot of things right. I would guess.

 

Ok, so why not post a few quotes here, to back up your opinion? Was he considered to have a chance at Louis' crown in a potential 3rd bout? I'm not doing any personal attacks when somebody disagrees with me, and not refusing to listen to the opposite sides, so come on...

 

Odd that in a thread entitled "Could Billy Conn have Carried Roy Jones' Jockstrap" that so many posts are concerning Bob Pastor...and even Joe Louis. For the record, I believe that Conn (a better fighter than Pastor) would have defeated Jones...in a bout that would have resembled, to a degree, Ken Buchanan-Ismael Laguna...with the less flashier guy winning by dint of better fundamentals and having more courage and a bit more of an "edge" to his style.

 

If you used word 'ranked fighter' I'd have no objections to that. But a contender, by definition, should be given at least some chances when contending for the title. Pastor was given none, prior to meeting Conn or after, when he re-gained his ranking.

 

As for doing the search myself... I know he re-gained his ranking, by beating several never-has-beens and a couple of light-heavyweight underdogs.

 

I'm not sure roy jones fought a contender at light heavy until Tarver.

 

For me, there is a difference between being ranked (even if #1) and being a contender. But possibly that's just me. Regardless, Pastor wasn't seen as a reason for Louis to be worried about, despite his regaining of the ranking. So nothing really changed post Louis-2 or post-Conn about Pastor.

 

Yeah, I don't this was serious qustion.

 

Merriam-Webster has the following definition of 'contender':

"a person who tries to win something in a contest; especially : a person who has a good chance of winning"

And it has the following example of usage:

"There are several contestants, but only two real contenders."

Basically, that's how I see that term too. One has to be able not only to compete/contest, but to have a real chance of winning. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the rankings, to deside who gets a paycheck next? I realize that most people understand/use that term differently though.

 

Yes.
They contend for the chance to fight the champion.
That's how it ought to be anyway.

In this case, contenders fight each other and "win" the chance to get KO'd by champion Joe Louis.
OR, less cynically, the chance to beat champion Joe Louis, since any decent professional has a chance, whether it great or slight. Upsets prove it time and again.

On a professional level, yes, it is all about the payday a title shot brings, traditionally anyway, for a lot of fighters. Certainly in that era when you could rarely make big money unless you got a title shot.
Otherwise you might just end up with the proverbial "one way ticket to palookaville".

 

No.

 

The rankings are the ranked contenders.

NBA called Bob Pastor a "logical contender" along with Conn, in 1942.

[url]https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19421029&id=1tlYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VvUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7017,5923299&hl=en[/url]