View Full Version : At this moment who is the greater fighter Manny Pacquiao or Billy Conn?


Joey Giardello
03-04-2010, 11:00 PM
Who is it? for me its still billy conn

BEEHOP
03-04-2010, 11:17 PM
Manny .

Obama
03-04-2010, 11:25 PM
Come now. Conn ain't THAT great. Manny gotta fall off hard to get rated lower than him.

Rolling Stone
03-05-2010, 12:48 AM
Pacquiao rates higher, but if Pacquiao loses to Clottey than Mayweather may be a different story

TBear
03-05-2010, 02:44 AM
At this moment who is the greater fighter Manny Pacquiao or Billy Conn?

At this moment it's Pacquiao!(sorry had to do that)

but of all time?

I would lean towards Pacquiao still, his victories and accomplishments outweigh Conn's in my opinion. I do respect Conn's accomplisments and he was a great, but what was his world title fight record? Something like 4-2!

frankenfrank
03-05-2010, 03:11 AM
Pacquiao and it is not even close.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 05:26 AM
Who is it? for me its still billy conn

I got Conn by a slight margin. His resume trumps Manny's in my opinion. That could change though.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 05:26 AM
Pacquiao and it is not even close.

Not even close? Please explain.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 05:28 AM
Come now. Conn ain't THAT great. Manny gotta fall off hard to get rated lower than him.

I disagree. I think Conn has beaten the better fighters thus far.

frankenfrank
03-05-2010, 05:29 AM
Not even close? Please explain.

boxrec and youtube will explain

Rolling Stone
03-05-2010, 05:29 AM
Pacquiao and it is not even close.
idiot......

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 05:33 AM
boxrec and youtube will explain

As far as I know there are only a few fights of Conn on Video. As far as boxrec goes, if you want to take that route, Conn has beaten the better fighters. So, in your opinion, why isn't it even close?

frankenfrank
03-05-2010, 06:07 AM
As far as I know there are only a few fights of Conn on Video. As far as boxrec goes, if you want to take that route, Conn has beaten the better fighters. So, in your opinion, why isn't it even close?

what better fighters ?
zale who was 11.5 lbs lighter than him at the time they fought , and is also overrated btw ?
like splitting 2 fights with Young Corbett 3 and having big luck their first encounter was a mere 10 rounder cuz had it been 15 he would have been stopped instead of just losing the decision ?
like haveing 15 stoppage wins out of 77 fights at times when there were 15 rounders and not fighting a good percentage of quality opposition ?

DR.ORGYY
03-05-2010, 06:13 AM
pac is obviously......

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 06:25 AM
what better fighters ?
zale who was 11.5 lbs lighter than him at the time they fought , and is also overrated btw ?
like splitting 2 fights with Young Corbett 3 and having big luck their first encounter was a mere 10 rounder cuz had it been 15 he would have been stopped instead of just losing the decision ?
like haveing 15 stoppage wins out of 77 fights at times when there were 15 rounders and not fighting a good percentage of quality opposition ?

Louis, Zale, Barlund, Savold, McCoy, Pastor, Lesnevich, Bettina, Krieger, Apostoli, Yarosz, Krieger, Corbett III, Dundee, Risko, Zivic. These are the top fighters I know about, Im sure there were more. You question the quality of his opposition tells me you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Ko's don't make a fighter great, wins do. As great as Pac is, his quality of opposition isn't as good as Conn's. Winning paper titles is great. Beating the larger amount of great fighters from your era is better.

tanibanana
03-05-2010, 06:31 AM
Pacfans here had developed an infamous reputation of being absurd Pacquiao fans.. Thus, I would not dare to give my answer anymore..

But I'd like to hear some answers..
there are already obvious one, that I don't need to ask
but I'd like to mention nonetheless..
who has more Ring FOY.. better w-l-d.. better KO%..

but since I barely know who Conn is..
you guys might change my perception.

-how huge was he back then?
-how many HOF'ers did he beat?
-who was the best guy he beat?
-what is his world title fights record?
-why only 64 wins, in a time where 80 wins
is just approximately the average?

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 06:48 AM
Pacfans here had developed an infamous reputation of being absurd Pacquiao fans.. Thus, I would not dare to give my answer anymore..

But I'd like to hear some answers..
there are already obvious one, that I don't need to ask
but I'd like to mention nonetheless..
who has more Ring FOY.. better w-l-d.. better KO%..

but since I barely know who Conn is..
you guys might change my perception.

-how huge was he back then?

One of the most popular fighters of his time.

-how many HOF'ers did he beat?

7 or 8, but don't quote me on that.

-who was the best guy he beat?

His ALMOST upset of Joe Louis is what he's remembered for, but he had wins against great fighters such as Zivic, Corbett III, Apostoli and other great fighters.

-what is his world title fights record?

I'd have to boxrec that, but you have to take into consideration there were many less weight classes and only one champion per, title fights were not easy to come by.

-why only 64 wins, in a time where 80 wins
is just approximately the average?

Not sure where you came up with the 80 win average my friend, but Conn did lose four years to WWII, he also had no amateur career.

tanibanana
03-05-2010, 07:08 AM
Not sure where you came up with the 80 win average my friend, but Conn did lose four years to WWII, he also had no amateur career.

the 80 like I said was approximate.. I'm probably wrong though, however 64 wins is small back then.. You can see guys in modern time racking up even up to 50+. But since he participated in WWII, that explain it all..

with regards to the title fights, don't worry i get your point.. I was very impressed w/ his quality of opposition, and if he is truely famous in his time, that's another props for him..

But I'd still give it to my man, probably biased here, can't blame me here, I'm basing it on time & recognitions.. Looking at Conn's reign of supremacy 1936 to 1941, 5-years, was a bit short. He could have made more if not for the WWII, but I feel legacies are made of records and not what could have been. If that's the case, Masao Oba would have beaten Fighting Harada as the greatest Japanese fighter.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 07:13 AM
the 80 like I said was approximate.. I'm probably wrong though, however 64 wins is small back then.. You can see guys in modern time racking up even up to 50+. But since he participated in WWII, that explain it all..

with regards to the title fights, don't worry i get your point.. I was very impressed w/ his quality of opposition, and if he is truely famous in his time, that's another props for him..

But I'd still give it to my man, probably biased here, can't blame me here, I'm basing it on time & recognitions.. Looking at Conn's reign of supremacy 1936 to 1941, 5-years, was a bit short. He could have made more if not for the WWII, but I feel legacies are made of records and not what could have been. If that's the case, Masao Oba would have beaten Fighting Harada as the greatest Japanese fighter.

But unlike the other poster who said it was not even close, I say it is somehow close.

I can respect a pick for Manny here. I don't personally think so, but its apples and oranges. Either way its VERY debatable.

frankenfrank
03-05-2010, 07:15 AM
Not sure where you came up with the 80 win average my friend, but Conn did lose four years to WWII, he also had no amateur career.
which gave him more time and less b4 pro damage.
and i did not bring any of his early losses against him in my post , did i ?

tanibanana
03-05-2010, 07:21 AM
[/B]

I can respect a pick for Manny here. I don't personally think so, but its apples and oranges. Either way its VERY debatable.
I edited, just realized, I might be asking Frank a heck of a debate over a guy (Conn) who I just knew his legacy with another poster..

But I'll stick in saying its close, as I see it.. forget the "unlike the other poster"..

frankenfrank
03-05-2010, 07:22 AM
Louis, Zale, Barlund, Savold, McCoy, Pastor, Lesnevich, Bettina, Krieger, Apostoli, Yarosz, Krieger, Corbett III, Dundee, Risko, Zivic. These are the top fighters I know about, Im sure there were more. You question the quality of his opposition tells me you don't have a clue what you're talking about.


who are those names ? his win over zivic is like for pac to win a decision over chris john instead of KOing hatton when he did.
but the most important thing is your great knowledge in the topics you choose to discuss.


Ko's don't make a fighter great, wins do.


i had to quote this.



As great as Pac is, his quality of opposition isn't as good as Conn's.

no , not at all , maybe i will add the comparison between them two to my my comparisons thread , but i don't think i will get that bored , and if i ever do , there are more interesting and relevant comparisons to be made.


Winning paper titles is great. Beating the larger amount of great fighters from your era is better.
which is what pac did.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 07:31 AM
which gave him more time and less b4 pro damage.
and i did not bring any of his early losses against him in my post , did i ?

Lol, how you gonna use early losses against a guy with no amateur background? And actually he would take more damage without the amateur experience having to learn each fight. Any way you look at it his resume is still excellent. You saying its not even close between him and Pac is utterly ridiculous.

frankenfrank
03-05-2010, 07:44 AM
Lol, how you gonna use early losses against a guy with no amateur background?


which gave him more time and less b4 pro damage.
and i did not bring any of his early losses against him in my post , did i ?


And actually he would take more damage without the amateur experience having to learn each fight.

not to such a great extent against the level of opposition he had at the beginning.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 07:50 AM
not to such a great extent against the level of opposition he had at the beginning.

Not for nothing but I find it very hard to believe that you know anything about his early comp except what you see on boxrec. If you do, great. Educate me on his opponents amateur careers or lack of if you know about it.

JAB5239
03-05-2010, 04:45 PM
who are those names ?

That just says it all right there. :pat: Pac must be the greater fighter, because you don't know the names on Conn's resume. :thumbsdow

BennyST
03-07-2010, 04:48 AM
At this moment it's Pacquiao!(sorry had to do that)

but of all time?

I would lean towards Pacquiao still, his victories and accomplishments outweigh Conn's in my opinion. I do respect Conn's accomplisments and he was a great, but what was his world title fight record? Something like 4-2!

You can't look at numbers like that and compare them. There was one title then. In how many divisions has Pac fought the one true champion? If you dismiss all his other stuff like the Cotto win, Hatton win, D. Diaz etc etc, they would all be non titlists back then and only contenders.

If you go back and look at who would have been the title holder back in Conn's time, there are very few that Pac has fought. It would probably equal a similar amount to Conn in reality. Even the lineal championships are suss today and don't equal the number one guy.

It is very hard to tell the story from title numbers today compared to older eras. They simply don't compare in any way, shape or form.