How does Billy Conn do against Muhammad Ali and Evander Holyfield? 12rds

Not good against either, I'm afraid.
Conn was very good, but just not big enough here.
Ali has however many pounds on him, as well as height and reach. Just as fast. I'm not sure how competitive Conn would be.
I'm sure he could go several rounds, but he's probably getting outboxed and probably stopped at some point.

I think he does a little better against Holyfield, who could look a little average at times versus good boxers.
But still, Conn is outgunned badly. Simply too small and not powerful enough, IMO.
I think Evander stops him mid rounds sometime. Conn may flatter to deceive in the early going though.

I think Louis' deliberate style is what allowed Conn to do so well. Louis very rarely punched unless he could land something, and his shuffling type style didn't cope with speed that well. Especially fast, elusive guys like Conn.

 

I think that he would be a problematic opponent for both of them, but we should not assume that eh would give them a close fight, for no other reason than that he gave Louis a close fight.

 

The fast conn who has the ability to use angles, control distance, to time and counter an opponent lose to both by Decision.

 

He d lose to both. Ali by decision
Conn lost his head against Louis, he does same against Holy and gets stopped.
Holyfield wko 12

 

Both stop him.
Ali might take a little longer via dancing and carrying him through the rounds.

 

None whatsoever. He gest beaten to a pulp, and I say this even though Ali and Holyfield were not huge punchers.

 

This is an extreme statement.

 

Neither had the power or finishing ability or Louis. Conn was made of iron.

I don't think he has much of a chance of beating them, but the idea either could get an easy stoppage is ridiculous

 

Conn gets knocked out in a few rounds tops by both Holyfield and Ali. These old timers will say but Conn did so well against Joe Louis so that means something. Yeah it does mean something and shows how overrated Joe Louis was. Joe Louis looked good because of his horrible competition. If Louis would of fought in the 70's, 80's, 90's or even early 2000's he would of never won any title and he would of never even been considered a contender. You see how Joe Louis struggle against Tony Galento? Even Butterbean was better than Galento.

 

Louis didn't have Holyfield and Ali's quick feet.

 

I think the meme of footspeed being Louis's weakness has little truth to it.

There were plenty of fighters with fast feet, who didn't give Louis that much trouble, and lets not forget the one boxer to beat Louis even vaguely close to his prime was Schmeling.

Conn fought a way more aggresive fight than he's given credit for. He didn't run away, he fought throughout on the inside for significant periods. He also took shots from Louis throughout, it would have been a quick KO if Conn didn't have an iron chin, but he did.

There were fighters who moved much more than Conn (or Walcott) against Louis, and did much worse.

Ali and Holyfield are very different fighters from Louis, with different strengths and weakness, I don't think we can be confident he would trouble them like he did Louis, though I don't think it's out of the relm of possibility.

 

It's ridiculous narrative that is mentioned everytime Louis name comes to discussion. I wonder why people don't say that about someone like Liston, who had clearly slower and worse footwork than Louis.

 

I always find it funny that Billy Conn, who was knocked the **** out two times out of two against Joe Louis, is ever used as some sort of knock against Joe Louis.

 

Think he losses to Lewis bad but has a solid chance at giving Evander hell. Evander did not perform well against that type of fighter.
Edit: read that wrong. Ali (not Lewis) beats knocks him out eventually in a not so exciting fight.