Conn and Ken Buchanan somewhat are alike in that they were primarily boxers without much power, but they both had great chins, durability and a sharp edged, fearless fighting spirit that made the difference for them in adversity in that they didn't take any **** off anybody.
Qawi does better than he did vs old George or young Evander . Qawi wins most exchanges , Conn had nothing 2 keep Qawi off him with , only try 2 stay away and hope 2 make it last as much as he could .
I think Conn would win, unanimously, probably 10 or 12 of 15 rounds. Too fast, too slick and too smart for Qwai. Also, I think you are under-selling Conn's punching ability. He hurt Louis, and 8 of his 14 kos came against HWs, if my memory is correct. The reason he didn't have a bunch of kos is because he fought a lot of very very good fighters when he was very young.
Louis was always hurt prone and Conn's stoppages were mainly due 2 cuts if i remember correctly and against low quality not really heavyweights and besides , no way he hit harder or nearly as hard as young Holyfield or old Foreman .
Conn was beating Joe Louis on 2 judges cards at 12 round mark and it was even on the third judges despite Louis having a 25 pound weight advantage, that was until Conn got c*cky and went for the KO. On that basis i can't see Qwai having the beating of Conn.
What about on the basis of any of Conn's other 10 losses? Btw, Qawi would've put far better pressure on Conn than Louis did. Can't see him following Conn around the ring getting potshotted for 12 rounds.
Conn fought in a tougher era, dealt with slightly better opponents. It would be a great fight, and Qawi would give no quarter, but Conn takes a majority decision over 15.
Or Qwais 11 losses. 7 of Conns losses were in fact when he was a teenager. I would put Louis above Qwai in any rankings, but if you think differently so be it.