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

Both. Our poor accursed Pagliacci. :verysad

 

I'm so much in accord with Mac on that point, actually, that I think he's a bit of a goose for even opening it up to questioning. They're just so far in front of the nearest pursuers on their heels in that sliver of history, June of forty-one. I'd say there is more space between Conn and the pack than between he and Louis the other way.

Zivic, Jenkins, Armstrong, Moore, Wright, and the upper classmen at Middle - all were in fine standing but you can't argue them as close to Joe & Billy any more than you could argue most any time in the last several years that anyone stood close to Floyd & Manny.

 

Before replying I hadn't read anything beyond the OP ...doing so now, in stitches.

"Hell no".

"Maybe."

"Possibly."

"Could be."

:blood



Um, yes. Nobody above came even close to providing a single well-researched compelling reason why not.

There isn't one.

 

Yes, he would.
I was just throwing his name out there to give due credit, perhaps also putting a little too much stock in the win over a green prospect called Ezzard Charles just a couple of weeks before Louis fought Conn. With around 150 fights to his credit, to Charles's 15 (newspapers say 22), maybe it shouldn't be counted for much.

It's worth noting he was ranked #1 by RING magazine at middleweight, with world title vacant, and holding the NY version, at end of 1940 (Zale #2, Soose #3 and Moore #4).
He's ranked #2 contender as a light-heavyweight at end of this year, 1941, despite weighing around 163 for most the year.

He belongs there, with Zale still, at least. Among the top ten p4p is fair. :good

 

Even if you're looking to discredit Louis either directly or indirectly (through deeming Conn trash, for the weirdo haters) you can't even remotely objectively make any kind of case for them not being 1 and 2. You've stumbled upon a pretty cut and dry one here, and I think some of the reticence initially shown even by good posters was simply because they'd never given the matter any thought. (nor had anyone, probably, since we are talking about one very specific point in time predating the existence of the "p4p" concept, which soon would be conceived for the benefit of Robinson, then a green nobody)

 

Of course, you'll always have the weirdo haters. :!:

 

I'm saying that Ray Robinson could lose twenty fights and still be p4p a better boxer than the unbeaten Floyd Mayweather, Rocky Marciano, and Joe Calzaghe. Wins and losses don't tell the whole story, so basing a pound for pound list on whether a guy has recently lost or not isn't always a good way to measure their ability. When the best fighter around has an off day or a bad match up that doesn't make the second best fighter better.

The best guy remains the best until his skills deteriorate and everyone starts beating him, or the second best guy beats him.

Also if some guy lower on the p4p list is turning in better performances than the guys at the top you shouldn't have to wait for the top guys to lose before you move the guys up or down. I moved Rigondeaux and Ward above Mayweather a year ago. When I see people's lists that still have Mayweather at #1 I think it's as ridiculous as guys who list Cotto as the Champ at middleweight. It's just a technicality and it doesn't reflect reality.

Your list is just a graphic representation of recent wins and losses. I'm asking who is actually the better boxer regardless of record. I think that there is a decent case to be made here in retrospect that at that exact snapshot in time Robinson was #1, Armstrong was #2, Pep was #3, and Joe Louis was #4 or lower.

 

A word of clarification: his overall case isn't up there. Obviously his quality of victories was better than Wright's, it just wasn't enough to offset the quantity in the case of Wright. (Louis, Conn, Armstrong and Zivic all beat him on both quantity and quality...Jenkins on quality alone.

 

Great, extremely enjoyable thread guys...thanks! What "Classic" is all about...hat doffed!

I's refreshing that "troll-free" threads like this still exist on the forum.

 

I've also found myself wandering who the top P4P guys would be had such ratings existed.

In 1940, Billy Conn was Ring's fighter of the year. So chances are he would have been P4P# 1 heading into the clash with Louis.