jake lamotta vs billy conn....

Because Satterfield isnt in Conn's class and pretty much anyone half decent beat Satterfield, plenty stopped him early, and the only particularly good fighter he'd been in with prior to Lamotta was Holman Williams who ofcourse beat him.

Conn was never ko'd after the age of 17 by anyone except Louis who would also blow out Lamotta pretty quickly, and Conn fought the best MWs and LHWs of his day.

 

conn easy win---conn was better boxer, faster and took Joe louis punches (one of the hardest hitiing HEAVYWEIGHTS ever) for 12 rounds. Not even close against a short, slow, midlleweight.

 

I have no doubts about the result at light heavyweight but Conn was young and inexperienced as a middleweight, struggling with Fritzie Zivic, Young Corbett III, Teddy Yarosz, Solly Krieger and even journeyman Oscar Rankin.

I think LaMotta would be too strong and experienced for him at that point.

 

Perhaps, but one cant down play Zivic and Corbett III who were amazing fighters in there own right. No shame in a struggle with them imo.

 

Billy Conn would beat Jake much like he did Tony Zale...he was too fast, resourceful and clever for any middleweight...hell, he almost beat Louis, what would he have to fear from any middleweight?

 

Billy Conn after his fight with middleweight title holder Fred Apostoli:

This content is protected

 

Yeah, but he BEAT Fred Apostoli twice...

 

He did but I'd say he would have had quite a lot to worry about against LaMotta and some other middleweights. Conn called the Apostoli fights his toughest ever.

 

He may have beating Fred, but Conn didnt relly walk away from the fights in good shape either.

 

What makes you think Conn wasn't equally as durable? From the age of 17 until the Louis fight, Conn went 51-1-3 against the best opposition of his day, without being stopped, going from Welter-Light Heavy. Thats some record

 

Conn did beat most of those men though beating Zivic as a 19yo. You could equally say Lamotta struggled against Marhsall (lost), Zivic (lost and went to SDs), Old Williams (debatable decision), Villemain (lost), Dauthuille (lost), Hudson (lost), Lytell (debatable SD), Basora (lost and avenged by stoppage)

So Conn wasnt as dominant or near prime at MW but Lamotta has more losses himself at the weight in his actual prime

 

Don't know about all of these fights being in his prime. I also don't know what was debatable about the Holman Williams decision.

LaMotta lost to Basora when he was 20 years old, to Zivic when he was 21. He was already slowing down by the time he threw the fight to Billy Fox, Robinson for example noted that LaMotta while still strong was much slower than in the early 1940's when they fought for a sixth time.

From 1942 to 1947 he only lost to Ray Robinson, Lloyd Marshall and Fritzie Zivic.

Conn way young and inexperienced at 160 and that's basically the point I was making. Despite having a solid chin he was dropped quite a few times as a middleweight and struggled and lost to people he would have beaten in his 175 lb prime.