Ring Magazine's #1/Champion's square off: 1939 v 1989

Actually in those days some some over the limit MW fights were considered over the limit MW fights and not LHW fights

That aside a tad inconsistant ignoring Jones win over a 168lb fighter while he weighed 168, while counting a win over a 161lber where Conn weighed 167

 

Jones failed to stop Chirino since the guy basically went into a shell for the distance, and was awkward and canny defensively. RJJ's KO record started to evaporate at 175 purely because his opponents were **** scared and spent most of the night jumping half-way across the ring at the slightest sign that Jones might actually throw something. It's difficult to KO a guy who's just looking to lose a wide decision without getting utterly humiliated unless you're particularly aggressive.

 

The fact is Jones would be the second greatest offensive force Conn ever faced.

Whos to say Hill/Griffin/Malinga/Woods werent more durable than Conn? Accumulatively they've gone the distance with Toney, Darius Mich, Benn, Eubank, Hearns, Tarver, Glen Johnson, Maske, Tiozzo. But they all got stopped by Jones

Bottom line is Conn would be hit cleanly more often than he ever had by perhaps the second hardest puncher he ever faced.

 

Oh and I take it you dont rate Ezzard Charles too highly at LHW too based on your own logic

 

No it's not. Jones fight at 168 were at smw, Conn's fight was at lhw.

 

Charles resume speaks for himself.

 

Yet Conn and his opponent weighed less, loving the hypocracy

 

You think Conn is better defensively than James Toney?

 

Conns defence better than Toney and BHOPs? No chance, plus he also looks easy to counter when he attacks because he comes in a bit square at times.

And how exactly has Conn proven he cant stand up to Jones assualts? He hasnt fought anyone as dangerous bar the slower Louis who ko'd him. Plus hes smaller and weaker, thats the bottom line.

 

The way people use the 'if it wasnt at the weight' it doesnt count and then use other fights below/above the weight is ofcourse hypocritical and bad maths.

The same people who use the 'it wasnt at the weight' are usually happy to rate Arstrong at FW despite the fact hes technically had about 12-13fights at the weight, beating hardly any ranked opponents at the actual weight

 

Hopefully he doesnt train any kids, :!: they'll get badly beat up