speak for yourself. Ya you wish, just hope Conn doesnt toy with jack dempsey worse than he did to joe louis Ya because 6'2 billy conn fought alot like a unskilled old midget lightheavyweight? Give me a break. Look at how much trouble Dempsey had with a healthly billy miske, conn could certainly do better than miske did.
Who else thinks Conn was better than Tunney? Just you as far as I read. If Conn tires to fight Dempsey the way fought Louis, he's getting Ko'd early. Carpeitner was a skilled fighter. You are mistaken. Mikse was heavier than Conn by a good margin. And Miske also beat better heavies.
Billy Conn had a great chin. It's a bit of a myth that he kept away from Joe Louis for 13 rounds, he got hit plenty, and brawled in close in almost every round. He was winning the fight, but Joe had won 4 or 5 rounds too, and landed some good punches on Conn. Louis was a lot better hitting moving targets than is made out. Thing about Louis is he was patient, picked his shots well, waited for and created mistakes in his opponent and capitalized. This gets mis-read by some as inability to adapt, or a weakness. Conn fought his heart out in a great fight, but I reckon his chin got him as far as the 13th round as much as his feet and skill did. Conn was big for such a light guy. He goes 6'1 or 6'2, and could really take a good punch, body or head. He didn't have much power but he hit Louis a string of punches right on the button and caused the great champion to wobble. Conn on his best night was a serious proposition. Conn was noticeably bigger than Carpentier, taller and with reach. Carpentier was a good puncher but really just a normal middleweight sized frame. Conn would seem closer to Dempsey in size, in height and in reach. Still, I dont think Conn was good enough to beat Dempsey. But Conn could fight on the inside and the outside and proved he could take a good punch, he was tough as hell. Only real deficiency was his lack of power. He would be able to outscore Dempsey at times. He could give Dempsey a decent fight, but eventually he'd get KO'd I think, as he did against Louis.
BIG DEE HERE = Where do you get that Conn was that much bigger than Carpentier. Conn was 6' 1 1/2" tall. Carpentier was 5' 11 1/2 " tall so the size wasn`t that big a difference. They both went on to fight in the heavyweight division late in their careers. Carpentier weighed what he needed to weigh to fight. Conn on the other hand the officals lied about his weight to help the gate as Conn rarely weighed more than 174 for any or his fights against heavyweights. Against Joe Louis they said his weight was 174 lbs but in truth was 169 lbs. Carpentier between the two fighters was the much harder hitter over Billy Conn. Carpentier was also a very good boxer unlike somebody seems to think.
The main thing Jack has over Joe Louis is that Jack was much faster on his feet. Anyone who could move well caused problems for Demspey because he was so used to having a big footspeed advantage on the big men. Conn would be frustrating for him in that he showed angles whilst in the pocket but even so he's still there. Tunney was a master boxer it's a shame some can't see it. He's have been a nightmare for Louis and would have fared better than Conn did in that match up. carpentier was also a great fighter who was in over his head with Jack. Anyway, Dempsey also has a hard time with Conn but I think he style wise he fares better than Louis and gets the job done earlier.
I disagree on both points. Louis was not good at hitting moving targets. It was his weakness and can be seen or read in fights where he was up against good boxers. Louis did not adapt at all to beat Conn. Conn adapted for him. Conn's extra aggression late in a fight cost him the victory. Conn was up on two cards. After wobbling and hurting Louis in round 12, Conn decided to go for the KO and lined himself up right in Louis's crosshairs. The rest was history. Had Conn not gambled or had the fight been 12 rounds, hes the new champion. Regarding Conns size, yes, he was tall for a light heavy, but his true weight for Louis fight was in the 160's. and he was a light puncher for a light heavyweight.
My first point is that Louis hit Conn plenty even when Conn was at range. Conn was tough enough to take the odd couple of shots and move away, for a few rounds at least. I'm crediting Conn's toughness. And highlighting a myth about Louis being unable to reach Conn because he was so inept against movers. You can repeat it but I have the fight on film and I see Louis catching Conn at range on many occasions, less so whe he begins to tire. My second point is that Conn used aggression in almost every round, and stood toe-to-toe with Louis for times in probably every round. Yes, he may have made a mistake by being TOO aggressive toward the end but it was the pattern of the fight from the beginning, it was inevitable that he'd use more of those tactics as Louis tired. It's not like Conn was running all night then radically chaged tactics, that's a myth. He was audacious in most of the rounds, and became more so as the fight wore on. Sure, he "could have" done otherwise, but that applies to just about anyone who ever lost a fight.
As for Conn's size, yes, he was light. But he looks as tall as Joe Louis on film. Whereas Carpentier looks noticeably shorter than Dempsey. And I believe Dempsey was no taller than Louis. Maybe it's because Carpentier is crouching, because he doesn't look almost six foot to me.
Conn was probably on a par with Tunney for footwork,imo,but he didnt possess Tunney's cool brain.Dempsey was faster afoot than Louis ,and would be on Billy allnight long Gibbons fought to survive,Conn would eventually go looking for Jack and that would be it.Dempsey by ko 9th rd
Joe Louis is 6'2, dempsey is 6'1. where are his boxing fundamentals? hands high, chin tucked, straight punches???
Conn weighed 169 for the Louis fight as he stated in a tv interview he was tall but really a big middle weight,and he had allmost no power ,unlike Carpentier who kod a few second tier heavyweights,and as a teen ager went the distance with Joe Jeanette
There is an old rumour that they lied about Carpentier's weight against Dempsey also and that Carpentier actually weighed 164 for Dempsey. Actually, I think Conn was much bigger than Carpentier, myself, off the film. Conn would actually be taller than Dempsey, off the usually stated heights, and he was taller than Tunney.
If you take any two all time great heavyweights you could pick a number of oponents off the resume of either that the other one would have done better against. I think this is a case where Dempsey dose better than Louis. Louis let Conn get away a couple of times when he could potentialy have finished him and let the minutes tick by. Dempsey would not have mised an oportunity to jump Conn and would have prosecuted the fight with greater urgency.
