Roy Jones vs Billy Conn (resume and p4p standing)

Conn would have smashed the faker's glass jaw into a million pieces/Jones was way too quick and athletic for that primitive dullard

 

Conn beats Roy Jones...

 

Jones is above con in everything I can measure regarding greatness

 

Jones was more dominant. Looks better on film.

Conn went from Middleweight to Heavyweight and gave Louis, a top 2 lock Heavyweight great the fight of his life. Jones went from Middleweight to Heavyweight and fought John Ruiz.

tie

 

i'm probably jones' biggest supporter on these boards but between him and conn, it's close no matter how you look at things imo. when i hear conn's name the first thing that comes to mind is that he's one of the greatest 175 lbers ever. when i hear jones' name the first thing that comes to mind is that he's one of the greatest lb for lb fighters ever. conn's resume is a little better if you're looking at wins (throw in the louis losses and it's way better). jones will probably always be ranked a little higher lb for lb. that might be fair or not. jones was the best fighter of his era. conn wasn't in his but he fought in a deeper era.

 

Conn beats him.

 

Jones was an athletic marvel, but Conn was as tough as they come. I would have to think that Conn style of fighting could nullify Jones speed advantage and tough out a win.

 

There are many ways to look at it. Conn has the deeper and better resume. I don´t think anyone really will dipute that - PP aside. So, if you judge them at this criteria you have to rank Conn higher. If you go by standing, well, like mac said, Joney was recognized as fighter of the decade for the 90s - even so IMO this claim can be disputed by a few fighters - and was clearly one of the Top5 fighters for a 10+ year period. Can be said the same about Conn? I don´t think so. But then Conn fought in a much deeper era and this should be considered too. IMO standing-wise there shouldn´t be much between them. I always rated Jones above Conn but that has a lot to do with me not going deep enough into Conn´s career I think. Overall, I think Conn was the greate fighter, Jones may very well have been the better one though.

 

No not resume. I think conn has better individual wins.

Jones was far more dominant and achieved more.

I disagree with jones being fighter of the decade though, for me that should be sweet pea and fairly clearly.

 

Jones in every aspect. In terms of wins resume Jones is much better, no one really analyses who Jones fought, bar Toney/Hopkins most know little of his opponents, they focus on who he didn't fight, well Conn turned down a fight with Charles Burley. He also didn't face Bivins, Charles, Marshall, partly because of the war, partly because he didn't want to lose his rematch shot at Louis. Jones beat something like 22 world champions in his time, barely dropping a round along the way

Bodhi calls me biased but he knows nothing of most of the fighters on Jones resume or their achievements, so his opinion is an uninformed and ignorant one.

 

Yes, but that's because the offer was laughable. Conn didn't need the fight, nobody was really demanding the fight and they were offering him peanuts for the fight. He was lined up to fight Joe Louis for HUGE money. Why fight Burley for chump change?

It was tantamount to Michael Spinks turning down a fight with Mike McCallum right before he fought Mike Tyson.