Was Billy Conn-Joe Louis I a meeting between the p4p #1 and #2?

I'd have to check my time line to see if I agree but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

No, I meant Overlin, but I was considering Soose as well.

 

Soose's win over Overlin was considered a very dubious decision by several reporters.
Overlin followed up by whipping a young Ezzard Charles a month later.

I think middleweight was stacked full of good candidates mid-1941.
Overlin, Soose, Zale.

 

Stop your inane chatter on fisticuffs and answer this man's question.

 

Why do you have to lose a fight to go down in ranking? Can't you just deteriorate in skill? Likewise, why couldn't you show improvement in a loss?

I also don't see what a match between Armstrong and Zivic has to do with Joe Louis. If Armstrong is recognized to be a better fighter than Joe Louis and Fritzie Zivic beats him, then shouldn't both Armstrong and Zivic be placed above Louis? Why should Louis' stock rise when Armstrong's falls? Even if Pacquiao beats Floyd Mayweather that doesn't mean that suddenly Wladimir Klitschko is a better boxer.

 

Yeah, both were.

 

Looking at top men across the divisions (let's for banter's sake narrow it to men rated as champs or #1 by the Ring), and their body of work in 1940 and Q1/Q2 of '41:

Archie Moore sticks out foremost among the names in play, as does Hank Armstrong. Was it either's best eighteen months' of toil, however? Moore was 10-1-1 (9) including a run of nine successes with eight inside the distance. Not shabby, though in terms of quality this wasn't the best stretch Moore ever saw. His best opponents in there are the ones he lost to and drew with, Hogue and Booker. As for Armstrong, he would have a great case were it not for hitting that Zivic wall at the end. Before that he went 8-0-1 (8.) including a 7-0 (7) stand of welterweight title defenses. Good challengers, too. Alas, he fumbled with Fritzie and then failed to right ship in the rematch.

Burley was 10-1-1 (5) in there, but there wasn't much in there, which anyone familiar with Burley realizes isn't his fault, but it still is what it is. The best that got in the ring with him, ∴ the best he fought, was Bivins, and Bivins licked him clean.

Chalky Wright kept an insane schedule in that year-and-a-half. He was 21-3 (12) and his losses were all to ace contenders. (murderer's row member Cocoa Kid and murderer's row bane Jimmy Leto both via majority decision, and 2x challenger for Armstrong's title Paul Labbe Jr., whom Chalky knocked out in a rematch seven months later). He's up there, p4p, in that moment in time. I'd say even top five.

Manuel Ortiz was revving the engine up but yet to climb the mountain, not the man he would become as the nascent decade flowered. His 11-1-2 (8.) in the applicable timespan is highlighted by a trilogy with Panchito Villa - not the great Filipino world champion. Panchito's highest mark was becoming champion of Mexico a few times (but never keeping his title for long).

Angott did alright. 8-1-3, two of his blemishes quite forgivable in the form of a clear loss to Zivic (the 'man' in the next division up) and the Arizmendi rematch. Fair quality, but very clearly not up there with Louis', Conn's, Armstrong's pre-Zivic, or even Wright's.

Zale was 10-1 (7) - including a perfect 3-0 over Al Hostak, twice for the world middleweight title, no small thing. Plus you have Apostoli, Martin, and Mamakos twice making this a hearty feast. The non-title embarrassment with Soose, though - yuck. That really hurts...and is even worse than it looks on paper. That is the sort of very bad night you don't get to have and still receive current top p4p consideration - that kind of night really needs some distancing from. You can't just be made someone's ***** in view of the public and play it off like it was some off-weight exhibition. No sir.

Lew Jenkins went 6-2-1, maybe the least impressive numbers we're looking at - BUT, the losses were to Hall of Famers in Hammerin Hank and Bobcat Bob, splitting a pair with the latter, and the draw with Zivic. That measly six? Holy mackerel. Blitzes of Tippy Larkin and Chino Alvarez. Two knockouts of Lou Ambers, the first snatching his crown. Beat Montgomery. Toppled bitter rival Lello to avenge his most recent (controversial) stoppage loss and defend his belt - and despite being a 2/1 underdog many gave Lello a chance to repeat. Though scanty on quantity, and with a mere 2/3 success rate, I rate Jenkins' deeds very highly.

Zivic - now this is maybe the strongest argument you could make against Conn at #2. Strong, but wrong nonetheless. 15-3-1 (7), besting none other than Hank Armstrong twice for a cherry on top. Beyond that, you have good but not great substance with a decision over the smaller Angott, the draw with the smaller Jenkins, and some filler including the hideous sideshow with Bummy Davis. As nice as having Armstrong's scalp is - even once, let alone duplicated! - I'm not sure it offsets the Barbara/Kaplan losses by itself or has enough ancillary support to put him up with Conn. I just don't think so.


Forget about Charles and Robinson - they'd both only just debuted. Neither had done anything yet.


Now, that Joe Louis was the #1 man in the world is a thing beyond doubting. We've ruled out the best of the rest from middle through fly - so the only question in determining whether Conn was #2 really becomes, in two parts, a) was Conn indeed the best light heavy? and b) were there any heavyweights BEHIND the champ but still good enough to squeeze in AHEAD of any lighter boxer?

A) Uncategorically. We have Cooper, Lesnevich II, Pastor, McCoy, Savold, Barlund (a former Olympian and career long cruiserweight, though no such division existed then), and Knox (getting on but still very capable and coming off a draw with Buddy Walker, and beat Cooper in '40). We'll omit his meaningless knockouts of feather-duster Hasset and batting-.500 Ira Hughes, since they do nothing for Conn and we did rake every other candidate with a fine tooth comb. So instead of 9-0 (5) we'll just say 7-0 (3) against meanginful opposition - and to be quite fair, of those, only the Lesnevich rematch was for Conn's light heavyweight titles. No matter. Conn's resume is, bar Louis', the best in the period in question - and if you widen the net to include 1939, that was an even more stellar year for Conn and probably slays that of anybody else we have looked at.

B) Absolutely not. Neither of the Baer lads fared all that well; both on the wind-down. Max went 2-1 (2), capped off by Nova batting him silly and ending his participation in the sport. Buddy went 4-1 (4) and made a washed up Two-Ton Galento quit, which is unremarkable even if we dismiss Galento's unsupported (and cringe-worthy if untrue) claim of a hand injury. Godoy lost to Louis twice, beat Dorazio (who Conn beat in '39), and was 2-3 overall in this stretch. Abe Simon and Red Burman were both ranked top 5 at heavy by The Ring but were utterly irrelevant, miles behind Louis, and not really better than some of fringe contenders at light heavy, let alone the champ.



Louis and Conn were, for the reasons Mac stated (being cully coves, triumphing over everyone they'd met for some time, having incredible streaks in title fights, racking up respectable names) - and, by way of my elucidated process of elimination here, the UNDENIABLE pound for pound #1 and #2 when they fought the first time in June of '41. :good

 

Incidentally, this phrase set me a-Google. The only instance of them paired together like that I could find was on another boxing forum, used by none other than yourself, talking about Jack Nicholson of all things.

I'm slightly disappointed to find it not to be a phrase in actual use (regionally modern, or antiquated) that you've embraced and championed, as you do, but I still dig it even if just a quirky original that you've coined, as you also do. I figured it 50-50 either-or.

 

Oops, I got a little carried away, didn't exactly stick with that - but I did keep it to guys ranked top five or so at their weight as of year-end 1940, and the overarching point was served either way - general idea being that a p4p list any given time probably should reflect primarily what folks have been up to mostly in the current and previous year.

 

My summer of '41 p4p top five:

1) Louis (obviously)
2) Conn (obviously)
3) Zivic (kind of necessary)
4) Jenkins (pretty solid on this)
5) Wright/Armstrong (help!!!)

 

Okay, never mind. I'm over my temporary insanity. Chalky has to be #6, no higher.

Armstrong went 2-0 (2) over common opponent Labbe in that period, and beat Jenkins, and moved up to challenge middleweight king Garcia and did amazingly well, held to a questionable draw.

 

Do you mean that or are you just being a wiseacre.

 

Overlin had probably worked his way into the p4p mix by that point; though his negative performance in the second fight with Soose led not only to a "loss" on his record, but also prevented him from being considered as being among the absolute best in the sport. He'd still have to be considered among the ten best in the sport at that point in time, I think.

Great thread...and I'm in agreement with McGrain and IB- I think Louis and Conn would indeed have been #1 and #2 in the sport at that time.