How does this change the historical landscape? We'll assume that Joe regains the title either by KO in a rematch avenging his UD15 shutout loss, or scooping it back up after it's vacated, if Conn preferred not to give up seventy-five pounds, a head & shoulders, and half an arm against challengers such as Baer; and that all the post-war stuff remains the same. For starters, Billy's name would be on that short list with Moorer, Spinks, and Jones (and hey, maybe eventually Hopkins and/or Adamek...) Would the addition of a loss - and to a smaller man - in the 40's (his unblemished decade in the real world) really affect Joe's legacy? Detractors can already use his struggles heading into the 13th for ammunition; does having the official W really safeguard him from any criticisms that aren't extant as it is? Personally, I think Joe comes out squeaky clean (particularly with the rematch going the way it actually did, if Conn granted one - and he almost certainly would) - in fact, he then predates Patterson as two-time champ - and we have an interesting addition to the HW title lineage.
I think the whole "Conn lost only because he decided to trade with Louis" is a whole load of spin put on the fight. I've watched the fight and Louis was catching him throughout - and Conn was willing to stand and trade in earlier rounds with great success - and it was a close fight. Conn was never a strict stick-and-move fancy dan, he was a complete fighter and sharp inside work made up a huge part of his package, and helped him build the slight lead he had over Louis. Conn may have got overconfident after he staggered Louis (in the 11th ? 12th ? I cant remember) but there was no dramatic change in his method. Of course, there's an element of truth in the tale, he was no doubt emboldened and excited about the chance of scoring a KO (he was a "light-hitter" after all) but it's really 90% spin, a good piece of boxing lore, and Billy Conn was a likely hero (young, handsome, white, well-mannered) to celebrate alongside Joe Louis. Having said that, the fight really is a classic, and Joe Louis and Billy Conn are true GREATS, regardless of legend and lore. If Joe Louis had lost by decision to Conn and then KO'd him in a rematch, yes, he'd still be considered as great as he is now, I guess. He had made 17 defences of the title before the Conn fight, including the slaughter of Schmeling.
Also had Conn coasted the last three remaining rounds, he would have either lost a split decision or the fight would have been a draw. In case he wins one of the three rounds, it would obviously be a huge victory for Conn who wasn't given much of a chance before the bout and a setback for Louis. I imagine if Louis did devastate Conn in a rematch, it would go down to Louis underestimating Conn and thus wouldn't lower his ranking, not by much atleast. Conn on the other hand would be recognized as one of the true pound for pound greats, even more so than now. His achievement should be rated above the likes of Spinks, Moorer or Jones in that case because he was in there against a prime ATG heavyweight, not Ruiz or an aging Larry Holmes.
They're showing both fights on ESPN Classic tonight, starting at 2am EST. Put some red bulls on ice or set your Tivo.
What iff's cut both ways. If we allow Conn to perform a faultless fight, but still force Louis to perform a fight riddled with errors, then it is a bit like a chess programe designed to make one side the winner. We could ask: What if Louis had not dehydrated himself before the fight, in order to make a ridiculous weight stipulation? What if Louis had not let Conn off the hook in the 10th round when he fell over, but had gone in for the kill as he would have been entitled to? What if Conn just got caught anyway, as in ran but couldnt hide?
Well then we'd have the same result on paper, and the historical landscape would remain unchanged. So there's no real intriguing question there.
Joe made the mistake of listening to reporters who advised him to come in light, for speed. Jack Blackburn warned him that he'd sacrifice strength if he did so. After that fight, Joe said, "Chappie was right. I wasn't strong at that weight." If Louis hadn't been weight drained, then Conn probably wouldn't have been able to stagger him as he did, and may not have gone for the kill, leaving him open to the fatal final attack which ended it. It's been a while since I read this, but either Manny Seamon or Blackburn asserted that Joe's body attack had taken away Billy's legs going into the championship rounds, depriving Conn of the ability to stay away from him. If Joe had come in at a more suitable weight, maybe that body attack would have slowed Billy down sooner. Regardless, if Conn had somehow managed to pull off a decision win, that would have set up a trilogy where Louis would belt him out twice in lethal order. Louis-Conn I would probably be viewed as a blip on the radar, an anomaly.
There are a lot of common false assumptions about the fight- 1. Conn was so far ahead that he could coast for the last three rounds and win. 2. Conn, if he tried to coast, would have certainly succeeded and not been stopped. 3. Conn changed his strategy from fighting like Muhammad Ali to brawling and this is why he lost. All are wrong. Conn had to fight to win.
If Conn had in fact won that fight. It is quite possible that he could have reigned for the duration of the War. As Louis shortley therafter went into the service. At the onset of WWII.