View Full Version : Roy Jones vs Billy Conn (resume and p4p standing)


JAB5239
11-22-2011, 03:05 AM
Very simple, who had the better resume and who rates higher p4p all time?

Jones came from an extensive amateur background that culminated in being robbed at the 1988 Olympics. As a pro he is in my opinion the most naturally gifted fighter to ever lace on a pair of gloves. The 10 best fighters he faced (in my opinion) are...

Hopkins (will go to the HOF)
Toney (will go to the HOF)
McCallum (HOF)
Griffin
Hill (will probably get in the HOF)
Johnson
Gonzalez
Ruiz
Tarver (has a slight chance to make the HOF)
Trinidad (will go to the HOF)

Billy Conn turned pro with no amateur background instead choosing to instead learn at the school of hard knocks. He is without a doubt one of the toughest, most durable and determined men to ever step foot in the ring. The 10 best fighters he faced (in my opinion) are...

Zivic (HOF)
Dundee
Yarosz (HOF)
Corbett III (HOF)
Krieger
Apostoli
Bettina
Lesnivich
Louis (HOF)
Zale (HOF)

These fighters for each are to just give a rough idea on their resumes, it is not a guideline of what you have to choose from. Their entire resumes should be looked at in detail.

I've felt for a very long time that these two greats are and will always be very close together historically in a p4p sense. I slightly lean toward Conn as the greater of the two because of his great first fight with Louis, which I consider more impressive than any of Jones wins, and because of how well he learned his trade with no amateur background. That is just my opinion though and have heard compelling arguments in the past as to why Jones should rank higher.

Vote and discuss. Poll is multiple choice.

Sugarj
11-22-2011, 06:39 AM
Very simple, who had the better resume and who rates higher p4p all time?

Jones came from an extensive amateur background that culminated in being robbed at the 1988 Olympics. As a pro he is in my opinion the most naturally gifted fighter to ever lace on a pair of gloves. The 10 best fighters he faced (in my opinion) are...

Hopkins (will go to the HOF)
Toney (will go to the HOF)
McCallum (HOF)
Griffin
Hill (will probably get in the HOF)
Johnson
Gonzalez
Ruiz
Tarver (has a slight chance to make the HOF)
Trinidad (will go to the HOF)

Billy Conn turned pro with no amateur background instead choosing to instead learn at the school of hard knocks. He is without a doubt one of the toughest, most durable and determined men to ever step foot in the ring. The 10 best fighters he faced (in my opinion) are...

Zivic (HOF)
Dundee
Yarosz (HOF)
Corbett III (HOF)
Krieger
Apostoli
Bettina
Lesnivich
Louis (HOF)
Zale (HOF)

These fighters for each are to just give a rough idea on their resumes, it is not a guideline of what you have to choose from. Their entire resumes should be looked at in detail.

I've felt for a very long time that these two greats are and will always be very close together historically in a p4p sense. I slightly lean toward Conn as the greater of the two because of his great first fight with Louis, which I consider more impressive than any of Jones wins, and because of how well he learned his trade with no amateur background. That is just my opinion though and have heard compelling arguments in the past as to why Jones should rank higher.

Vote and discuss. Poll is multiple choice.


It is pretty close isn't it? I do edge Jones but I wouldn't argue it.

I've got a feeling that Jones would do at least as well as Conn against 'that' version of Louis. Poor Joe seemed to be having a rough day at the office that night, I gather that he dieted and didn't hydrate well before the fight because he didn't want Conn to look too small in there with him.

Granted Jones might have got knocked out late too, but he was rather more safety conscious than Conn; who bless him, decided to trade with Louis (!!!) in the final two rounds of their fight.

As for resumes it is tit for tat. I sway to Jones because he was considered pound for pound number one for the best of a decade. Conn would have been considered behind Louis in the pound for pound stakes.

Greatest1942
11-22-2011, 09:25 AM
Very simple, who had the better resume and who rates higher p4p all time?

Jones came from an extensive amateur background that culminated in being robbed at the 1988 Olympics. As a pro he is in my opinion the most naturally gifted fighter to ever lace on a pair of gloves. The 10 best fighters he faced (in my opinion) are...

Hopkins (will go to the HOF)
Toney (will go to the HOF)
McCallum (HOF)
Griffin
Hill (will probably get in the HOF)
Johnson
Gonzalez
Ruiz
Tarver (has a slight chance to make the HOF)
Trinidad (will go to the HOF)

Billy Conn turned pro with no amateur background instead choosing to instead learn at the school of hard knocks. He is without a doubt one of the toughest, most durable and determined men to ever step foot in the ring. The 10 best fighters he faced (in my opinion) are...

Zivic (HOF)
Dundee
Yarosz (HOF)
Corbett III (HOF)
Krieger
Apostoli
Bettina
Lesnivich
Louis (HOF)
Zale (HOF)

These fighters for each are to just give a rough idea on their resumes, it is not a guideline of what you have to choose from. Their entire resumes should be looked at in detail.

I've felt for a very long time that these two greats are and will always be very close together historically in a p4p sense. I slightly lean toward Conn as the greater of the two because of his great first fight with Louis, which I consider more impressive than any of Jones wins, and because of how well he learned his trade with no amateur background. That is just my opinion though and have heard compelling arguments in the past as to why Jones should rank higher.

Vote and discuss. Poll is multiple choice.

Good Thread...

H2H I will go with Conn...Resume wise its near even. You can pick anybody, and I will have no qualms about it.
I do think Conn had the better chin of the two by a margin at LHW.

Ivansmamma
11-22-2011, 09:39 AM
I havenīt seen enought of Conn to have an opinion but his fight with Louis was great.

BigStereotype
11-22-2011, 12:58 PM
I'm more familiar with the names on Jones' resume, so it's hard for me to really judge there. From the looks of things, they had a pretty equal level of competition in regards to HOF level fighters. But just as far as the eyeball test goes, I'd have to go with Roy. From what I've seen, Conn was a very talented, tough and tricky fighter. But Jesus, Roy was like Superman in his prime. I'd have picked Roy in a head-to-head match and I have to say he has the higher p4p standing.

Welsh Jon
11-22-2011, 01:06 PM
Personally I think Conn's resume is far superior to RJJ's.

Conn is best known as a light-heavy, but his resume at middleweight is possibly just as good, despite never holding a world title at the weight. I'd say his resume at middleweight is better than Jones's resume at middleweight and super-middle and by quite a distance.

At light-heavyweight their resumes are quite even. I again have Conn ahead, but I can understand anyonne who ranks RJJ's light-heavy CV ahead of Conn's.

At heavyweight I don't see how RJJ's win over Ruiz can be more impressive than Conn's brave loss to Louis in their 1st meeting.

Jones won world titles in 4 weight classes to Conn's 1. But Conn's middleweight CV is better than Jones', there was no Super-Middleweight division in Conn's eras and Conn didn't have the option of taking on a weaker alphabet titleholder at heavyweight, his only option was to take on a guy who was at worst the 2nd greatest heavyweight of all time.

Conn hands down.

Greatest1942
11-22-2011, 03:20 PM
Personally I think Conn's resume is far superior to RJJ's.

Conn is best known as a light-heavy, but his resume at middleweight is possibly just as good, despite never holding a world title at the weight. I'd say his resume at middleweight is better than Jones's resume at middleweight and super-middle and by quite a distance.

At light-heavyweight their resumes are quite even. I again have Conn ahead, but I can understand anyonne who ranks RJJ's light-heavy CV ahead of Conn's.

At heavyweight I don't see how RJJ's win over Ruiz can be more impressive than Conn's brave loss to Louis in their 1st meeting.

Jones won world titles in 4 weight classes to Conn's 1. But Conn's middleweight CV is better than Jones', there was no Super-Middleweight division in Conn's eras and Conn didn't have the option of taking on a weaker alphabet titleholder at heavyweight, his only option was to take on a guy who was at worst the 2nd greatest heavyweight of all time.

Conn hands down.

Agreed, Conn was good at heavy where resume is better. Also was very good at middle, and great at Light Heavy...

I will give him the tick on both resume and H2H vs Roy Jones.

joseph5620
11-22-2011, 04:12 PM
Personally I think Conn's resume is far superior to RJJ's.

Conn is best known as a light-heavy, but his resume at middleweight is possibly just as good, despite never holding a world title at the weight. I'd say his resume at middleweight is better than Jones's resume at middleweight and super-middle and by quite a distance.
At light-heavyweight their resumes are quite even. I again have Conn ahead, but I can understand anyonne who ranks RJJ's light-heavy CV ahead of Conn's.

At heavyweight I don't see how RJJ's win over Ruiz can be more impressive than Conn's brave loss to Louis in their 1st meeting.

Jones won world titles in 4 weight classes to Conn's 1. But Conn's middleweight CV is better than Jones', there was no Super-Middleweight division in Conn's eras and Conn didn't have the option of taking on a weaker alphabet titleholder at heavyweight, his only option was to take on a guy who was at worst the 2nd greatest heavyweight of all time.

Conn hands down.

That's interesting. Who did Conn beat at 160 far superior to Bernard Hopkins or James Toney?

joseph5620
11-22-2011, 04:20 PM
I'm more familiar with the names on Jones' resume, so it's hard for me to really judge there. From the looks of things, they had a pretty equal level of competition in regards to HOF level fighters. But just as far as the eyeball test goes, I'd have to go with Roy. From what I've seen, Conn was a very talented, tough and tricky fighter. But Jesus, Roy was like Superman in his prime. I'd have picked Roy in a head-to-head match and I have to say he has the higher p4p standing.

That's what I see when looking at both of them fight. When you look at them head to head Jones had more in his arsenal. Along with the blinding speed Jones had power that Conn never had at any weight. Head to head, pound for pound, I would go with Jones.

JAB5239
11-22-2011, 04:36 PM
That's interesting. Who did Conn beat at 160 far superior to Bernard Hopkins or James Toney?

Nobody. But his resume between 147.1 and 167.9 has far more depth overall.

JAB5239
11-22-2011, 04:38 PM
That's what I see when looking at both of them fight. When you look at them head to head Jones had more in his arsenal. Along with the blinding speed Jones had power that Conn never had at any weight. Head to head, pound for pound, I would go with Jones.

Head to head I would pick Jones. Pound for pound is much harder to assess in my opinion.

joseph5620
11-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Nobody. But his resume between 147.1 and 167.9 has far more depth overall.

Yes, but I wouldn't call it "far superior". Jones completely dominated and rarely lost rounds from 160-168. Against some very good fighters too. It would take a lot to be far superior to that.

Welsh Jon
11-22-2011, 07:29 PM
Nobody. But his resume between 147.1 and 167.9 has far more depth overall.

This was my point exactly.

Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Young Corbett, Fred Apostoli all fantastic fighters.

Conn has one of THE great boxing CV's. I have him ranked in my top 15 middleweights and light-heavyweights of all-time. The Ring have him ranked the 9th best light-heavyweight of all-time and the 10th best middleweight.

Now head-to-head RJJ is a beast who you could confidently match up with any middleweight and light-heavy in history. But resume wise there are plenty of great fighters ahead of him. Billy Conn is one of them.

joseph5620
11-22-2011, 10:58 PM
This was my point exactly.

Fritzie Zivic, Vince Dundee, Young Corbett, Fred Apostoli all fantastic fighters.

Conn has one of THE great boxing CV's. I have him ranked in my top 15 middleweights and light-heavyweights of all-time. The Ring have him ranked the 9th best light-heavyweight of all-time and the 10th best middleweight.

Now head-to-head RJJ is a beast who you could confidently match up with any middleweight and light-heavy in history. But resume wise there are plenty of great fighters ahead of him. Billy Conn is one of them.

That still doesn't explain how Conn's resume at 160 is far superior to Jones at 160-168. I don't see that at all.

Welsh Jon
11-23-2011, 02:43 AM
That still doesn't explain how Conn's resume at 160 is far superior to Jones at 160-168. I don't see that at all.

Wasn't it already explained we're talking about the old middleweight limit before the junior and super divisions were thought up?

From 147.1 to 167.9 Conn beat far more quality fighters than RJJ.

Zivic, Dundee, Corbett, Apsotili, Yarosz and Risko are more impressive victories than Hopkins, Tate, Malinga, Toney, Byrd and Pazienza.

joseph5620
11-23-2011, 04:58 AM
Wasn't it already explained we're talking about the old middleweight limit before the junior and super divisions were thought up?

From 147.1 to 167.9 Conn beat far more quality fighters than RJJ.

Zivic, Dundee, Corbett, Apsotili, Yarosz and Risko are more impressive victories than Hopkins, Tate, Malinga, Toney, Byrd and Pazienza.

Conn also clearly lost some of those fights. Jones didnt lose a fight and rarely lost rounds at 160 or 168. And as I said before, none of those fighters are far superior to Hopkins or Toney who Jones clearly beat at 160-168.

Welsh Jon
11-23-2011, 12:49 PM
Conn also clearly lost some of those fights. Jones didnt lose a fight and rarely lost rounds at 160 or 168. And as I said before, none of those fighters are far superior to Hopkins or Toney who Jones clearly beat at 160-168.

Never said the fighters he beat were far superior to Hopkins or Toney. I said his middleweight resume was far superior than RJJ's. It's more than just comparing his best wins.

From December 1936 until he stepped up to win the light-heavyweight belt in July 1939 he fought 20 times in 2 and a half years going 17-3. Each of the 3 guys he lost to; Young Corbett, Teddy Yarosz and Sonny Kreiger he got the better of in 2 fights out of 3 in trilogies. He beat 4 Hall of Famers in this time; Fritzie Zivic, Yarosz, Corbett and Fred Apostoli. He went 6-2 against hall of famers in a very short space of time.

RJJ was dominant in his run as middleweight and super-middleweight chsmpion, and he did beat 2 future hall of famers, but I still feel Billy Conn has much greater depth in his middleweight resume.

Greatest1942
11-23-2011, 06:13 PM
Never said the fighters he beat were far superior to Hopkins or Toney. I said his middleweight resume was far superior than RJJ's. It's more than just comparing his best wins.

From December 1936 until he stepped up to win the light-heavyweight belt in July 1939 he fought 20 times in 2 and a half years going 17-3. Each of the 3 guys he lost to; Young Corbett, Teddy Yarosz and Sonny Kreiger he got the better of in 2 fights out of 3 in trilogies. He beat 4 Hall of Famers in this time; Fritzie Zivic, Yarosz, Corbett and Fred Apostoli. He went 6-2 against hall of famers in a very short space of time.

RJJ was dominant in his run as middleweight and super-middleweight chsmpion, and he did beat 2 future hall of famers, but I still feel Billy Conn has much greater depth in his middleweight resume.


He also beat Tony Zale , though he had around 10 pound weight advantage in that. Also beat Bettina.

The simple point is that Conn faced good competition much regularly than RJJ did. The truth is that Conn actually fought in a far deeper era. He also caught most of the guys in their primes.Look at it anyway you can make a case for Conn in top 10 of light heavy easily (he will be there in my list) and at middle too. Which speaks volumes about his resume.

I wont debate about that their power or H2H skills...I will just say Conn was probably a purer boxer with good speed...He was no RJJ in terms of speed sure, but he was no slouch there either.So its not like RJJ will run circles around him. And his Chin was better IMO.

Many will no doubt like to point out that he was a very ligh puncher, but fact is Conn was a decent puncher. He always fought very good opponents, rarely fought Tomato cans and as such never had a thrilling KO percentage. He was never an ATG puncher but he could hurt people. He was a Much better puncher than his KO percentage suggests.

Conn has the better resume, RJJ might have two best wins, but Conn had a very deep resume at both middle weight and Light heavy, one of the reasons he was ranked so high by the ring in both middle and light heavy.

Kid McCoy
11-23-2011, 08:23 PM
I find Conn the more impressive. He was matched much tougher throughout his career and his overall body of work was superior to Jones, imo. Eight of his losses were before his 20th birthday. Of the rest, two were to Louis, one to Hall of Famer Yarosz (who he also beat twice) and to Solly Krieger, a tough middleweight who he also beat twice. Someone said Jones looked like Superman. So would Conn against the likes of Glen Kelly and Rick Frazier. And does anyone think Conn would have hesitated for a second when it came to fighting a Michalczewski?

Even Jones' wins over Hopkins and Toney get a bit overblown. Toney though a quality fighter on his day has always been up and down (I thought he was clearly beaten by Dave Tiberi, for instance). Hopkins-Jones was two fairly untested prospects fighting for a vacant title. Hopkins didn't have many recognisable names on his resume at that point. Jones beating that Hopkins isn't more impressive to me than a 19 year old Conn defeating vastly more experienced Hall of Famers like Teddy Yarosz and Fritzie Zivic.

I think Conn's power is also being undersold here. He wasn't Bob Foster but he had enough pop to keep Joe Louis honest for 13 rounds and did KO a good durable heavyweight in Bob Pastor, whose only other KO was to Louis. It should also be borne in mind that Conn fought a lot of tough guys who didn't get stopped very often: Dundee (1 KO loss in 154 fights), Yarosz (1 KO in 127 fights), Zivic (4 KOs in 223 fights), Corbett (4 KOs in 156 fights) which dilutes his record more.

joseph5620
11-23-2011, 10:53 PM
I find Conn the more impressive. He was matched much tougher throughout his career and his overall body of work was superior to Jones, imo. Eight of his losses were before his 20th birthday. Of the rest, two were to Louis, one to Hall of Famer Yarosz (who he also beat twice) and to Solly Krieger, a tough middleweight who he also beat twice. Someone said Jones looked like Superman. So would Conn against the likes of Glen Kelly and Rick Frazier. And does anyone think Conn would have hesitated for a second when it came to fighting a Michalczewski?

Even Jones' wins over Hopkins and Toney get a bit overblown. Toney though a quality fighter on his day has always been up and down (I thought he was clearly beaten by Dave Tiberi, for instance). Hopkins-Jones was two fairly untested prospects fighting for a vacant title. Hopkins didn't have many recognisable names on his resume at that point. Jones beating that Hopkins isn't more impressive to me than a 19 year old Conn defeating vastly more experienced Hall of Famers like Teddy Yarosz and Fritzie Zivic.
I think Conn's power is also being undersold here. He wasn't Bob Foster but he had enough pop to keep Joe Louis honest for 13 rounds and did KO a good durable heavyweight in Bob Pastor, whose only other KO was to Louis. It should also be borne in mind that Conn fought a lot of tough guys who didn't get stopped very often: Dundee (1 KO loss in 154 fights), Yarosz (1 KO in 127 fights), Zivic (4 KOs in 223 fights), Corbett (4 KOs in 156 fights) which dilutes his record more.

I can just as easily say that Jones would have looked like Superman against a lot of Conn's opponents. In fact, I would bet on it. And Jones would have fought Michaelczewski in the United States. He did not want to fight Michaelczeski in Germany because he didn't want to get robbed. Considering what happened to him in the Olympics he had every right to feel that way.


The fact remains that Toney was considered by many to be the best fighter in the world at the time. And he is a future hall of fame fighter. Hopkins record before the fight doesn't change the fact that Hopkins went on a 12 year unbeaten streak after that fight and beat some highly rated fighters. He's still going strong at almost 47. Not being of aware of his ability going into the first Jones fight has nothing to do with his actual ability. And the Toney fight with Tiberi doesn't change his standing any more than Conn's controversial win over Yarosz changes his career and standing. Looking at it from that perspective I can say Conn's loss to Louis is overblown. It was one fight and he lost by getting knocked out cold. In spite of that, a lot of people still talk about the fight as if Conn won it. A loss is not more impressive than a clear victory over a high quality fighter no matter how you look at it.




Joe Louis was honest because of Conn's speed, movement, and counter punching. I don't believe it was because of his Conn's power. Even if you believe Conn's power is underrated it doesn't compare to Jones no matter how you look at it.

IMDAZED
11-24-2011, 12:46 AM
Nobody. But his resume between 147.1 and 167.9 has far more depth overall.

Good point. However, I think Conn has more depth in his resume because he was more active and fought in an era where nearly everyone was. Not quite sure I'd compare these two using that context but I see a lot of posts doing that. When I look at standings, I rate the quality and number of top-heavy victories first. Losses second. It's hard to rate a Conn because most of what I seen were his highlights. Not too many of the other variety but he had plenty of those as well.

Kid McCoy
11-24-2011, 11:06 AM
I can just as easily say that Jones would have looked like Superman against a lot of Conn's opponents. In fact, I would bet on it. And Jones would have fought Michaelczewski in the United States. He did not want to fight Michaelczeski in Germany because he didn't want to get robbed. Considering what happened to him in the Olympics he had every right to feel that way.


The fact remains that Toney was considered by many to be the best fighter in the world at the time. And he is a future hall of fame fighter. Hopkins record before the fight doesn't change the fact that Hopkins went on a 12 year unbeaten streak after that fight and beat some highly rated fighters. He's still going strong at almost 47. Not being of aware of his ability going into the first Jones fight has nothing to do with his actual ability. And the Toney fight with Tiberi doesn't change his standing any more than Conn's controversial win over Yarosz changes his career and standing. Looking at it from that perspective I can say Conn's loss to Louis is overblown. It was one fight and he lost by getting knocked out cold. In spite of that, a lot of people still talk about the fight as if Conn won it. A loss is not more impressive than a clear victory over a high quality fighter no matter how you look at it.




Joe Louis was honest because of Conn's speed, movement, and counter punching. I don't believe it was because of his Conn's power. Even if you believe Conn's power is underrated it doesn't compare to Jones no matter how you look at it.

Michalczewski came to the US to call Jones out at the Hill fight and Jones ignored him. I don't believe Jones had any serious interest in making the fight. He even tried to stop HBO mentioning Dariusz' name. I also doubt Jones would have been robbed in Germany. A lot of Dariusz' fights had American judges and referees and if the Germans really were protecting him they wouldn't have let him lose to Gonzalez when he could have tied 49-0.

Hopkins wasn't the fighter he'd become years later. He was an untested, fairly inexperienced fighter who hadn't yet beaten anyone important and wouldn't have been anywhere near a title in Conn's era. Jones beating Hopkins circa 2000 would have been much more impressive. So one of Conn's Yarosz wins was close. I'd say the 1937 Yarosz was a better and more experienced fighter than the 1993 Hopkins.

The point about Toney was he was always up and down. This is a guy who was capable of losing to a Tiberi or a Thadzi at different stages of his career and he wasn't exactly at the peak of his powers against Jones. Jones beating him is a good win but it doesn't surpass what Conn was doing. Whitaker was p4p #1 when that fight happened. And again why no rematch which would have done more for Roy's legacy than the fights he was taking. I don't see these type of questions about Conn's career. Conn probably would have fought Toney and Hopkins 2 or 3 times apiece.

I don't think Conn was great because of his loss to Louis. It's a string to his bow in that it was a tremendous effort against an all-time great heavyweight but it's his whole body of work that makes him a great. He fought in a tougher era than Jones against better competition, was being thrown in with experienced Hall of Famers and other top contenders as a teenager, mostly beating them and he carried on being matched tough throughout his career. Despite that only three men beat him after the age of 20. One was Louis and the other two were top fighters who he also beat twice.

I didn't say Conn hit harder than Jones, just that he had more pop than he's credited with. Conn didn't just out-box Louis, he was out-fighting him and winning the exchanges. He was hitting hard enough to earn Joe's respect and at one point visibly wobbled him with a hook. Jones' power is unlikely to be a factor in a fight with Conn as Conn took it from harder punchers than Jones.

joseph5620
11-24-2011, 05:05 PM
Michalczewski came to the US to call Jones out at the Hill fight and Jones ignored him. I don't believe Jones had any serious interest in making the fight. He even tried to stop HBO mentioning Dariusz' name. I also doubt Jones would have been robbed in Germany. A lot of Dariusz' fights had American judges and referees and if the Germans really were protecting him they wouldn't have let him lose to Gonzalez when he could have tied 49-0.

Hopkins wasn't the fighter he'd become years later. He was an untested, fairly inexperienced fighter who hadn't yet beaten anyone important and wouldn't have been anywhere near a title in Conn's era. Jones beating Hopkins circa 2000 would have been much more impressive. So one of Conn's Yarosz wins was close. I'd say the 1937 Yarosz was a better and more experienced fighter than the 1993 Hopkins.

The point about Toney was he was always up and down. This is a guy who was capable of losing to a Tiberi or a Thadzi at different stages of his career and he wasn't exactly at the peak of his powers against Jones. Jones beating him is a good win but it doesn't surpass what Conn was doing. Whitaker was p4p #1 when that fight happened. And again why no rematch which would have done more for Roy's legacy than the fights he was taking. I don't see these type of questions about Conn's career. Conn probably would have fought Toney and Hopkins 2 or 3 times apiece.

I don't think Conn was great because of his loss to Louis. It's a string to his bow in that it was a tremendous effort against an all-time great heavyweight but it's his whole body of work that makes him a great. He fought in a tougher era than Jones against better competition, was being thrown in with experienced Hall of Famers and other top contenders as a teenager, mostly beating them and he carried on being matched tough throughout his career. Despite that only three men beat him after the age of 20. One was Louis and the other two were top fighters who he also beat twice.

I didn't say Conn hit harder than Jones, just that he had more pop than he's credited with. Conn didn't just out-box Louis, he was out-fighting him and winning the exchanges. He was hitting hard enough to earn Joe's respect and at one point visibly wobbled him with a hook. Jones' power is unlikely to be a factor in a fight with Conn as Conn took it from harder punchers than Jones.

Michaelczewki calling Jones out in the US is not the same as fighting in the US. Michaelczewski never fought outside of Germany and he was NOT willing to fight Jones in the US. You can doubt all you want about Jones being robbed in Germany. It doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. Michaelczeski's stoppage win over Richard Hall was highly questionable. American judges didn't prevent that from happening.


Conn was knocked out cold by Louis so you can't say "he took his punches" Conn was also knocked down and hurt by fighters who might not have punched as hard as Jones. So don't pretend that Jones couldn't hurt Conn.





As far as Toney he was not up and down when Jones fought him. You can continue to try to discredit that win all you want but it doesn't change history. Toney was considered by many to be the best fighter in the world at that time. Whitaker was NOT the unanimous choice for pound for pound d number 1 at that time. When you say "no rematch" you're nitpicking. If you want to go that route I can mention all of Conn's losses with no rematch. And how do you know Hopkins was not the same fighter? He went on an unbeaten streak for 12 years after the Jones fight. Did he miraculously transform after his fight with Jones? I call BS on that and consider it a weak attempt to discredit Jones for beating Hopkins.

Kid McCoy
11-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Michaelczewki calling Jones out in the US is not the same as fighting in the US. Michaelczewski never fought outside of Germany and he was NOT willing to fight Jones in the US. You can doubt all you want about Jones being robbed in Germany. It doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. Michaelczeski's stoppage win over Richard Hall was highly questionable. American judges didn't prevent that from happening.


Conn was knocked out cold by Louis so you can't say "he took his punches" Conn was also knocked down and hurt by fighters who might not have punched as hard as Jones. So don't pretend that Jones couldn't hurt Conn.


As far as Toney he was not up and down when Jones fought him. You can continue to try to discredit that win all you want but it doesn't change history. Toney was considered by many to be the best fighter in the world at that time. Whitaker was NOT the unanimous choice for pound for pound d number 1 at that time. When you say "no rematch" you're nitpicking. If you want to go that route I can mention all of Conn's losses with no rematch. And how do you know Hopkins was not the same fighter? He went on an unbeaten streak for 12 years after the Jones fight. Did he miraculously transform after his fight with Jones? I call BS on that and consider it a weak attempt to discredit Jones for beating Hopkins.


Dariusz actually said he was willing to fight Jones in the US. Jones just wasn't interested in fighting him full stop. He even put a up a poll on his website asking 'who shall I fight next?' and when Dariusz was the overwhelming choice he had it pulled. So the Hall fight was controversial. DM gave him a rematch and won again without controversy. Hill and Griffin both went to Germany and lost fair and square. Gonzalez went to Germany and beat Dariusz fair and square when the Germans would have had every reason to protect him.

Conn was knocked out cold by one of the hardest hitting heavyweights ever and it's not like he got KO'd with the first punch. Even at the end he took a lot of flush shots from Louis before going down. That's hardly proof Jones could do the same. He was never stopped by anyone else, unless you count a TKO when he was 17. If Conn took it from Savold, Zale, Rankins, Apostoli and Louis for 13 rounds, there's no reason to think he couldn't take it from Jones. How many punchers did Jones take it from?

Toney was always up and down and he was never the unanimous choice for p4p #1 either. He shouldn't have even been undefeated going into the Jones fight. The Ring didn't have him higher than 3rd. And regardless, one win against Toney doesn't make him better than Conn. Why is asking about rematches nitpicking? These were potentially big (and risky) fights that Jones didn't make and it's not as if his career was overflowing with those. How many tough fights can you say Conn genuinely avoided? If Conn had shared Jones' attitude to rematches he would never have lost to Yarosz, because he wouldn't have fought him again after winning the first one. That's the difference between Jones and someone like Conn. Conn took risks, which cost him a few more losses but his career is more impressive for it.

Do you think Hopkins was the complete article in 1993 and didn't improve in the next ten years? I don't think you'll find many who would agree with that. I don't discredit Jones for beating Hopkins, I just don't see it as a Thrilla in Manila type legacy fight either. It was a good win against a then untested prospect who became a top fighter, which is really what Jones was at the time as well. Jones beating the Hopkins who had beaten Trinidad would have been a much bigger win.

SCtrojansbaby
11-25-2011, 02:00 PM
Same ole same ol nothing Roy Jones ever did deserves full credit and everything everybody else does is the greatest thing ever

JAB5239
11-25-2011, 03:17 PM
Same ole same ol nothing Roy Jones ever did deserves full credit and everything everybody else does is the greatest thing ever

Stop whining and argue the facts than. You can't because you simply don't know boxing's history, and we've already established that.

IronDanHamza
11-25-2011, 04:53 PM
I think it's argubale.

Scott9945
11-25-2011, 10:05 PM
Same ole same ol nothing Roy Jones ever did deserves full credit and everything everybody else does is the greatest thing ever

I'm just curious why you don't have Roy Jones on your favorite fighter list, when it is plainly obvious that he's your favorite fighter.

Greatest1942
11-25-2011, 10:08 PM
I think it's argubale.

It is very arguable true. However there is no basis for saying Jones would have been robbed iN germany..come on then every fighter going to USA should think they will be robbed in USA. USA is not the world. What about Roy Jones and Steve Collins by the by.

If you wish we can debate, because with you I am quite sure it won't be a mud slinging match.

1) Jones might have the two biggest names. I can live with this.

2)Given the above can you still argue who has the deeper resume. There are some question marks over Jones not taking fights, there aren't any about Conn.

3) Ultimately Conn fought more regularly against the top guys than Jones ever did. He did face most of them at their best too, something you can't say objectively about Jones.

Look at the guys he beat Gus Lesnevich, Fred Apostoli, Fritzie Zivic ,Melio Bettina, Babe Risko, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz ,Lee Savold , Bob Pastor, Tony Zale , his resume is sprinkled with names from middle weights to Light heavy and he has pretty good wins at heavy, not great but good. I doubt Jones will muster this much quality wins in each division or even with all divisions.

The man went 13 rounds with Joe Louis. I doubt Jones chin is as good. In his whole Career Conn was KO'd by Joe Louis and in his third fight, when he was 17...So once when he was really young, and twice by the guy who was voted as the #1 puncher ever 3 KOs in all. it took a combo from Louis to put Conn away I doubt it will take so much for Jones...Tarver and Glen Johnson did it fine. I will not count Jones recent KO's, since he really should not have been there.

As for as power, its Jones but its not like it will be a walkover. Conn KO'd Bob Pastor one of the tougher heavyweights of the era or any era. He mostly fought ranked contenders and its not easy to get a good Ko% against top competition. Don't believe me ? We all know George Foreman's KO%...wanna know his Ko% against top 2 contenders ? its 57%. Just to reiterate the fact that its not so easy to get it against top competition.

I have said this numerous times and I will say this again, I have seen Louis in some serious trouble only thrice, 1st fight against Max, 1st against Conn and against the Rock...It was not the movement but the punches that had Louis in trouble at one spot. It is a tribute to Conn's underrated power that he was able to trouble good to great heavies with his power.

I doubt anyways Jones will last 10 rounds with Louis. Because not only was Conn fast, he was technically a very sound boxer. Its more difficult to catch a fast technically sound boxer, than a faster but not so sound boxer.

I will also say one last thing if WW2 would not happened we might have seen more of Billy...WW2 really destroyed his prime years. I think he would have beat Moore to make a more formidable resume.

To me its Conn...as someone truly said, he has one of the best CV's in boxing. You might match him in the top 3 but its hard to match the overall depth. His total list of wins blows Jones resume out of water IMO.

And lastly since Dundee has not been mentioned and some guys might start shouting who is he, here is his resume won 115 (KO 28) + lost 19 (KO 1)...pretty impressive and might be actually top 5 in Roy's resume.:boxing:

Greatest1942
11-25-2011, 10:10 PM
Same ole same ol nothing Roy Jones ever did deserves full credit and everything everybody else does is the greatest thing ever

Congrats on getting unbanned.

As for your whining :peeright:

Welsh Jon
11-26-2011, 06:21 AM
Same ole same ol nothing Roy Jones ever did deserves full credit and everything everybody else does is the greatest thing ever

Pretty sure everyone considers RJJ a great fighter. But there are plenty of fighters out there with better resumes than him. That's as close to being a fact as such things can be.

IronDanHamza
11-26-2011, 11:26 AM
It is very arguable true. However there is no basis for saying Jones would have been robbed iN germany..come on then every fighter going to USA should think they will be robbed in USA. USA is not the world. What about Roy Jones and Steve Collins by the by.

If you wish we can debate, because with you I am quite sure it won't be a mud slinging match.

1) Jones might have the two biggest names. I can live with this.

2)Given the above can you still argue who has the deeper resume. There are some question marks over Jones not taking fights, there aren't any about Conn.

3) Ultimately Conn fought more regularly against the top guys than Jones ever did. He did face most of them at their best too, something you can't say objectively about Jones.

Look at the guys he beat Gus Lesnevich, Fred Apostoli, Fritzie Zivic ,Melio Bettina, Babe Risko, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz ,Lee Savold , Bob Pastor, Tony Zale , his resume is sprinkled with names from middle weights to Light heavy and he has pretty good wins at heavy, not great but good. I doubt Jones will muster this much quality wins in each division or even with all divisions.

The man went 13 rounds with Joe Louis. I doubt Jones chin is as good. In his whole Career Conn was KO'd by Joe Louis and in his third fight, when he was 17...So once when he was really young, and twice by the guy who was voted as the #1 puncher ever 3 KOs in all. it took a combo from Louis to put Conn away I doubt it will take so much for Jones...Tarver and Glen Johnson did it fine. I will not count Jones recent KO's, since he really should not have been there.

As for as power, its Jones but its not like it will be a walkover. Conn KO'd Bob Pastor one of the tougher heavyweights of the era or any era. He mostly fought ranked contenders and its not easy to get a good Ko% against top competition. Don't believe me ? We all know George Foreman's KO%...wanna know his Ko% against top 2 contenders ? its 57%. Just to reiterate the fact that its not so easy to get it against top competition.

I have said this numerous times and I will say this again, I have seen Louis in some serious trouble only thrice, 1st fight against Max, 1st against Conn and against the Rock...It was not the movement but the punches that had Louis in trouble at one spot. It is a tribute to Conn's underrated power that he was able to trouble good to great heavies with his power.

I doubt anyways Jones will last 10 rounds with Louis. Because not only was Conn fast, he was technically a very sound boxer. Its more difficult to catch a fast technically sound boxer, than a faster but not so sound boxer.

I will also say one last thing if WW2 would not happened we might have seen more of Billy...WW2 really destroyed his prime years. I think he would have beat Moore to make a more formidable resume.

To me its Conn...as someone truly said, he has one of the best CV's in boxing. You might match him in the top 3 but its hard to match the overall depth. His total list of wins blows Jones resume out of water IMO.

And lastly since Dundee has not been mentioned and some guys might start shouting who is he, here is his resume won 115 (KO 28) + lost 19 (KO 1)...pretty impressive and might be actually top 5 in Roy's resume.:boxing:

I think Roy Jones is a great fighter and he does have a great resume, as far as I'm concerned.

I feel at times he's unfairly critisized, in regards to his resume. He took a lot of worthless fights, yes, but, that doesn't discount a lot of excellent wins he does have.

That being said, I agree that Billy Conn has the stronger resume.

There's no denying he certainly fought the much much better fighters, which attests to his loss's. That much is certain.

And in my mind there's no doubt that he beat the better fighters also. His resume is better than Roy Jones'.

I think with Roy, it's different. This may be considered an unfair reasoning, but, Roy was just so good in his prime. When ranking him, people take into consideration his H2H ability. I know I'm guilty. Roy skills and ability are truley some of the most exceptional the sport has ever seen.

As for chin, I don't think there's doubt who has the better chin. Roy Jones doesn't last 6 rounds with Joe Louis. Simple as that.

I thought when Joe landed that punch that may have knocked out a Lion, he was going down. But he stuck in there and Joe had to pull out all he could to take him out.

Another myth that's risen, that Joe landed one punch and knocked him out cold.

Billy Conn was a skilled fighter but I think Jones trumps him in this regard. In terms of all round ability, skills and being a gifted athlete. Besides chin, Jones beats Conn. Despite Conn being masterful himself.

Although, Billy Conn was tough, he could stand and bang. I hate to use Floyd Mayweather as an example in the History section but a lot like Floyd Mayweather, Billy Conn has a myth surronding him that he was a pure pure boxer. But although there's truth to his boxing ability, he would happily stand and bang, and fight it out with his opponent.

Something that annoys me about the reasoning for Roy Jones' ranking is; "He beat a prime James Toney or Bernard Hopkins and that's better than anything 'so and so' did"

I mean, that's fine, but what does it really mean? Ruben Carter's astonishing KO of Emile Griffith is better than the majorty of the last era's wins. But he's certainly not greater than any of the Top fighters of the last era. You know?

Anyway, I think all in all it's arguable because of Roy Jones H2H ability and skills. And I personally feel he'd beat him at 160-175.

But, I'm breaking my own standard. Because I personally don't rank like that, generally.

I go mainly and mostly by resume. And I'll have to agree that Billy Conn has the better resume. When all said and done.

joseph5620
11-26-2011, 02:21 PM
Dariusz actually said he was willing to fight Jones in the US. Jones just wasn't interested in fighting him full stop. He even put a up a poll on his website asking 'who shall I fight next?' and when Dariusz was the overwhelming choice he had it pulled. So the Hall fight was controversial. DM gave him a rematch and won again without controversy. Hill and Griffin both went to Germany and lost fair and square. Gonzalez went to Germany and beat Dariusz fair and square when the Germans would have had every reason to protect him.

Conn was knocked out cold by one of the hardest hitting heavyweights ever and it's not like he got KO'd with the first punch. Even at the end he took a lot of flush shots from Louis before going down. That's hardly proof Jones could do the same. He was never stopped by anyone else, unless you count a TKO when he was 17. If Conn took it from Savold, Zale, Rankins, Apostoli and Louis for 13 rounds, there's no reason to think he couldn't take it from Jones. How many punchers did Jones take it from?

Toney was always up and down and he was never the unanimous choice for p4p #1 either. He shouldn't have even been undefeated going into the Jones fight. The Ring didn't have him higher than 3rd. And regardless, one win against Toney doesn't make him better than Conn. Why is asking about rematches nitpicking? These were potentially big (and risky) fights that Jones didn't make and it's not as if his career was overflowing with those. How many tough fights can you say Conn genuinely avoided? If Conn had shared Jones' attitude to rematches he would never have lost to Yarosz, because he wouldn't have fought him again after winning the first one. That's the difference between Jones and someone like Conn. Conn took risks, which cost him a few more losses but his career is more impressive for it.

Do you think Hopkins was the complete article in 1993 and didn't improve in the next ten years? I don't think you'll find many who would agree with that. I don't discredit Jones for beating Hopkins, I just don't see it as a Thrilla in Manila type legacy fight either. It was a good win against a then untested prospect who became a top fighter, which is really what Jones was at the time as well. Jones beating the Hopkins who had beaten Trinidad would have been a much bigger win.

Michaecszewski never fought outside of Germany. Period. The first Hall fight was controversial. So that ends your theory that everything would have been fair in Germany. I don't care about websites and polls mean nothing to me. You choose to take DM's word for it. I take Jones and that's where it ends for me.








Toney had a record of 44-0-2 when he fought Jones. How the hell is that "up and down"? You talk about his one fight with Tiberi as if that defined his career. The fight with Tiberi was at 160. At 168 Toney never came close to losing before he fought Jones and I'll say it again, many considered him to be the best fighter in the world at that time. That is a fact. Was Conn up and down with 11 losses when he fought Louis? With your logic he was. Conn rematched fighters that he lost to. You're criticizing Jones for not rematching fighters he clearly beat. How many times did Jones have to beat them for your satisfaction? The Toney fight was not close and neither was the fight with Hopkins. I'm guessing it wouldn't matter. And again I'm not buying that Hopkins was simply a "prospect" when Jones beat him. He was no more a prospect than Jones was. And Hopkins went unbeaten for 12 years after that fight. This is an obvious attempt to discredit the win. If Hopkins got better so did Jones. You can't have it both ways.

joseph5620
11-26-2011, 02:40 PM
I think Roy Jones is a great fighter and he does have a great resume, as far as I'm concerned.

I feel at times he's unfairly critisized, in regards to his resume. He took a lot of worthless fights, yes, but, that doesn't discount a lot of excellent wins he does have.

That being said, I agree that Billy Conn has the stronger resume.

There's no denying he certainly fought the much much better fighters, which attests to his loss's. That much is certain.

And in my mind there's no doubt that he beat the better fighters also. His resume is better than Roy Jones'.

I think with Roy, it's different. This may be considered an unfair reasoning, but, Roy was just so good in his prime. When ranking him, people take into consideration his H2H ability. I know I'm guilty. Roy skills and ability are truley some of the most exceptional the sport has ever seen.

As for chin, I don't think there's doubt who has the better chin. Roy Jones doesn't last 6 rounds with Joe Louis. Simple as that.

I thought when Joe landed that punch that may have knocked out a Lion, he was going down. But he stuck in there and Joe had to pull out all he could to take him out.

Another myth that's risen, that Joe landed one punch and knocked him out cold.

Billy Conn was a skilled fighter but I think Jones trumps him in this regard. In terms of all round ability, skills and being a gifted athlete. Besides chin, Jones beats Conn. Despite Conn being masterful himself.

Although, Billy Conn was tough, he could stand and bang. I hate to use Floyd Mayweather as an example in the History section but a lot like Floyd Mayweather, Billy Conn has a myth surronding him that he was a pure pure boxer. But although there's truth to his boxing ability, he would happily stand and bang, and fight it out with his opponent.

Something that annoys me about the reasoning for Roy Jones' ranking is; "He beat a prime James Toney or Bernard Hopkins and that's better than anything 'so and so' did"

I mean, that's fine, but what does it really mean? Ruben Carter's astonishing KO of Emile Griffith is better than the majorty of the last era's wins. But he's certainly not greater than any of the Top fighters of the last era. You know?

Anyway, I think all in all it's arguable because of Roy Jones H2H ability and skills. And I personally feel he'd beat him at 160-175.

But, I'm breaking my own standard. Because I personally don't rank like that, generally.

I go mainly and mostly by resume. And I'll have to agree that Billy Conn has the better resume. When all said and done.






Overall I think Conn has the better resume but not by nearly as much as some think. Head to head pound for pound I think Jones was the better fighter.


I also think Jones win over Ruiz is completely overlooked and underrated. Ruiz was not great but he did beat a number of top heavyweights and had a difficult style. Jones starting at 160 and getting that clear win was impressive in my view.

res
11-26-2011, 03:34 PM
Hopkins wasn't the fighter he'd become years later... Jones beating Hopkins circa 2000 would have been much more impressive.


Yeah I'd have to bicker with this. The only reason Hopkins looked so impressive later on was because 90's Roy was out of the way. Nobody looked impressive in Roy's division when Roy was around in the 90's. As was mentioned, Hopkins went on to have an over 10 year winning streak after Roy.

It seems that what's being argued is: Roy has to beat these guys in a context in which his dominance doesn't make them look bad.

As for the OT, like I think the second poster mentioned, it's a close call. I lean a little toward Conn.

Greatest1942
11-26-2011, 04:24 PM
I think Roy Jones is a great fighter and he does have a great resume, as far as I'm concerned.

I feel at times he's unfairly critisized, in regards to his resume. He took a lot of worthless fights, yes, but, that doesn't discount a lot of excellent wins he does have.

That being said, I agree that Billy Conn has the stronger resume.

There's no denying he certainly fought the much much better fighters, which attests to his loss's. That much is certain.

And in my mind there's no doubt that he beat the better fighters also. His resume is better than Roy Jones'.

I think with Roy, it's different. This may be considered an unfair reasoning, but, Roy was just so good in his prime. When ranking him, people take into consideration his H2H ability. I know I'm guilty. Roy skills and ability are truley some of the most exceptional the sport has ever seen.

As for chin, I don't think there's doubt who has the better chin. Roy Jones doesn't last 6 rounds with Joe Louis. Simple as that.

I thought when Joe landed that punch that may have knocked out a Lion, he was going down. But he stuck in there and Joe had to pull out all he could to take him out.

Another myth that's risen, that Joe landed one punch and knocked him out cold.

Billy Conn was a skilled fighter but I think Jones trumps him in this regard. In terms of all round ability, skills and being a gifted athlete. Besides chin, Jones beats Conn. Despite Conn being masterful himself.

Although, Billy Conn was tough, he could stand and bang. I hate to use Floyd Mayweather as an example in the History section but a lot like Floyd Mayweather, Billy Conn has a myth surronding him that he was a pure pure boxer. But although there's truth to his boxing ability, he would happily stand and bang, and fight it out with his opponent.

Something that annoys me about the reasoning for Roy Jones' ranking is; "He beat a prime James Toney or Bernard Hopkins and that's better than anything 'so and so' did"

I mean, that's fine, but what does it really mean? Ruben Carter's astonishing KO of Emile Griffith is better than the majorty of the last era's wins. But he's certainly not greater than any of the Top fighters of the last era. You know?

Anyway, I think all in all it's arguable because of Roy Jones H2H ability and skills. And I personally feel he'd beat him at 160-175.

But, I'm breaking my own standard. Because I personally don't rank like that, generally.

I go mainly and mostly by resume. And I'll have to agree that Billy Conn has the better resume. When all said and done.

You and I agree on

1)Conn had the better resume

2) Conn beat the overall better fighters.

3)Conn was Ko'd by a combo not a single punch.Some misinformed guys spread this kind of FUD's, due to their ignorance of the era.

4)Conn was a underrated puncher. You said some of his losses attest that he had to fight good fighters throughout, I add it is also one of the reasons his KO% is low, I think we agree here.

5)Jones would be lucky to see 10 rounds with Louis, no matter how speedy he is, because he won't take some of the bombs in between as well as Conn did.

To sum up, I think we disagree on one major point. I think like you Roy was exceptional in terms of physical attests. He dominated his division thoroughly. But I do think he made some mistakes in every fight , which he got away with due to his assets plus some of his opponents incapability too. Both contributed too his dominance. If he fought high class opponents more consistently than he did I think he will be losing more often than he did.

I think too that Conn is underrated H2H...he would have been very difficult for any LHW, not only had he a good chin ,but good solid fundamentals and he was quick. Certainly on video it does seem he was very quick, he had good quick hands, good solid fundamentals as a boxer and very good chin, and he had excellent stamina.

I am not saying Roy did not have these, but Conn was more battle tested on this than Roy (that again does not mean Roy was not tested at all, but Conn came back from this again and again)...when fighters of equal capabilities fight its the intangibles, and I will give it to Conn.

But there is no reason to continue disputing, as we do agree on the most controversial ones, and in h2h anyone's opinion is valid, its too subjective.

joseph5620
11-27-2011, 12:06 AM
It is very arguable true. However there is no basis for saying Jones would have been robbed iN germany..come on then every fighter going to USA should think they will be robbed in USA. USA is not the world. What about Roy Jones and Steve Collins by the by.

If you wish we can debate, because with you I am quite sure it won't be a mud slinging match.

1) Jones might have the two biggest names. I can live with this.

2)Given the above can you still argue who has the deeper resume. There are some question marks over Jones not taking fights, there aren't any about Conn.

3) Ultimately Conn fought more regularly against the top guys than Jones ever did. He did face most of them at their best too, something you can't say objectively about Jones.

Look at the guys he beat Gus Lesnevich, Fred Apostoli, Fritzie Zivic ,Melio Bettina, Babe Risko, Vince Dundee, Teddy Yarosz ,Lee Savold , Bob Pastor, Tony Zale , his resume is sprinkled with names from middle weights to Light heavy and he has pretty good wins at heavy, not great but good. I doubt Jones will muster this much quality wins in each division or even with all divisions.

The man went 13 rounds with Joe Louis. I doubt Jones chin is as good. In his whole Career Conn was KO'd by Joe Louis and in his third fight, when he was 17...So once when he was really young, and twice by the guy who was voted as the #1 puncher ever 3 KOs in all. it took a combo from Louis to put Conn away I doubt it will take so much for Jones...Tarver and Glen Johnson did it fine. I will not count Jones recent KO's, since he really should not have been there.

As for as power, its Jones but its not like it will be a walkover. Conn KO'd Bob Pastor one of the tougher heavyweights of the era or any era. He mostly fought ranked contenders and its not easy to get a good Ko% against top competition. Don't believe me ? We all know George Foreman's KO%...wanna know his Ko% against top 2 contenders ? its 57%. Just to reiterate the fact that its not so easy to get it against top competition.

I have said this numerous times and I will say this again, I have seen Louis in some serious trouble only thrice, 1st fight against Max, 1st against Conn and against the Rock...It was not the movement but the punches that had Louis in trouble at one spot. It is a tribute to Conn's underrated power that he was able to trouble good to great heavies with his power.

I doubt anyways Jones will last 10 rounds with Louis. Because not only was Conn fast, he was technically a very sound boxer. Its more difficult to catch a fast technically sound boxer, than a faster but not so sound boxer.

I will also say one last thing if WW2 would not happened we might have seen more of Billy...WW2 really destroyed his prime years. I think he would have beat Moore to make a more formidable resume.

To me its Conn...as someone truly said, he has one of the best CV's in boxing. You might match him in the top 3 but its hard to match the overall depth. His total list of wins blows Jones resume out of water IMO.

And lastly since Dundee has not been mentioned and some guys might start shouting who is he, here is his resume won 115 (KO 28) + lost 19 (KO 1)...pretty impressive and might be actually top 5 in Roy's resume.:boxing:



Foreman stopped Norton, Chuvalo, Lyle and Frazier. So why would his KO percentage percentage against top fighters be 57 percent? Are you including 40 plus Foreman? Seriously?

Greatest1942
11-27-2011, 08:53 AM
Foreman stopped Norton, Chuvalo, Lyle and Frazier. So why would his KO percentage percentage against top fighters be 57 percent? Are you including 40 plus Foreman? Seriously?

1)I doubt Foreman will rank that high without his 40 plus legacy making wins. I give him credit for his wins there, and rank him over guys like Liston, Frazier, Dempsey due to that. It is fair I count his wins there and his fights too.

2)These are the guys I took Ali, Frazier, Norton, Young, Cooney, Holyfield.

Cooney was ranked within #2 once but he was a shell of himself, but I took him.Note Foreman got him in the return. Holyfield Foreman couldn't.

Ali, Young were in his prime or near by. If I don't take his return bouts he is 60%, not a major jump...or in other words almost the same.

2)Lyle was never ever ranked in the top 2. So could not take him. If you read carefully I said "wanna know his Ko% against top 2 contenders "? .
I dare say you missed this.

Look its not a discredit he has a KO% of 57, its rather good considering the guys he fought. MY point was simplt to show that its not very easy to putaway the top guys, because they will beat you sometimes, and even if not they will take you to a decision.

Just to show this, Lewis is also 64%,which is very good,but lower than his career...And both Foreman and Lewis were massive punchers. They won't come much bigger than Big George.

joseph5620
11-27-2011, 11:04 AM
1)I doubt Foreman will rank that high without his 40 plus legacy making wins. I give him credit for his wins there, and rank him over guys like Liston, Frazier, Dempsey due to that. It is fair I count his wins there and his fights too.

2)These are the guys I took Ali, Frazier, Norton, Young, Cooney, Holyfield.

Cooney was ranked within #2 once but he was a shell of himself, but I took him.Note Foreman got him in the return. Holyfield Foreman couldn't.

Ali, Young were in his prime or near by. If I don't take his return bouts he is 60%, not a major jump...or in other words almost the same.

2)Lyle was never ever ranked in the top 2. So could not take him. If you read carefully I said "wanna know his Ko% against top 2 contenders "? .
I dare say you missed this.

Look its not a discredit he has a KO% of 57, its rather good considering the guys he fought. MY point was simplt to show that its not very easy to putaway the top guys, because they will beat you sometimes, and even if not they will take you to a decision.

Just to show this, Lewis is also 64%,which is very good,but lower than his career...And both Foreman and Lewis were massive punchers. They won't come much bigger than Big George.

First of all, when a fighter is at least 10 years past his prime, his fights at that stage should not be used against him. Foreman exceeded expectations at that point.

Cooney had not fought in three years and his previous fight was a KO loss to Michael Spinks. So how was he a top 2 heavyweight? If any organization ranked him that way it was bogus. Cooney never beat a legitimate top fighter in his career.



Ron Lyle was a legitimate top heavyweight and certainly more than Cooney which is why I mentioned him. Prime Foreman took out most of the top fighters he faced with the exception of Ali and Young although he had Young badly hurt. If you're going to make a case for Conn's power Foreman is not the guy to compare him to.

Greatest1942
11-27-2011, 12:27 PM
First of all, when a fighter is at least 10 years past his prime, his fights at that stage should not be used against him. Foreman exceeded expectations at that point.

Cooney had not fought in three years and his previous fight was a KO loss to Michael Spinks. So how was he a top 2 heavyweight? If any organization ranked him that way it was bogus. Cooney never beat a legitimate top fighter in his career.



Ron Lyle was a legitimate top heavyweight and certainly more than Cooney which is why I mentioned him. Prime Foreman took out most of the top fighters he faced with the exception of Ali and Young although he had Young badly hurt. If you're going to make a case for Conn's power Foreman is not the guy to compare him to.

1) Ron Lyle like it or not was never ranked as top 2 heavyweight by the ring.
This is the bitter truth like it or not. One of the reasons might be that Lyle was overshadowed by Big George himself, Ali, Frazier, Norton , Young etc.
Whether he was legitimate or not is pointless to argue. He was not ranked in the top 2 Cooney was, PERIOD.

2)Cooney was ranked in top 2 at some point of time , before he fought Holmes to be precise...I used any guy who was ranked top 2 at any point, it is most easy to do.

3)Young was not badly hurt...He went the 15 rounds and won the fight. Period.

4) Foreman was out of his prime as was Cooney, pointless to argue since I give George the KO win.

5)Argue as much as you will, even if I take out Cooney or Holyfield its 60% well below his career record. No discredit innot knocking out Ali or Young, but he didn't this is maths, not subjective analysis.


I am not comparing Conn with Foreman, I am only saying even one of the most fearsome guys like Foreman saw his KO% depreceate once he faced top contenders...it happened and happens with everybody, even George was not the exception. Conn a much lesser P4P puncher was also no exception.

Don't take this as an attack on Foreman understand the perspective. If you don't move on, I am not going go on a debate with you about this.

joseph5620
11-27-2011, 01:19 PM
1) Ron Lyle like it or not was never ranked as top 2 heavyweight by the ring.
This is the bitter truth like it or not. One of the reasons might be that Lyle was overshadowed by Big George himself, Ali, Frazier, Norton , Young etc.
Whether he was legitimate or not is pointless to argue. He was not ranked in the top 2 Cooney was, PERIOD.

2)Cooney was ranked in top 2 at some point of time , before he fought Holmes to be precise...I used any guy who was ranked top 2 at any point, it is most easy to do.

3)Young was not badly hurt...He went the 15 rounds and won the fight. Period.

4) Foreman was out of his prime as was Cooney, pointless to argue since I give George the KO win.

5)Argue as much as you will, even if I take out Cooney or Holyfield its 60% well below his career record. No discredit innot knocking out Ali or Young, but he didn't this is maths, not subjective analysis.


I am not comparing Conn with Foreman, I am only saying even one of the most fearsome guys like Foreman saw his KO% depreceate once he faced top contenders...it happened and happens with everybody, even George was not the exception. Conn a much lesser P4P puncher was also no exception.

Don't take this as an attack on Foreman understand the perspective. If you don't move on, I am not going go on a debate with you about this.

Now you're being ridiculous. Cooney was not a top 2 heavyweight when he fought Foreman. Period. What he was "ranked" when he fought Holmes is irrelevant. Lyle was a better and more accomplished heavyweight than Cooney regardless of the "ring" rankings which you obviously live by. I challenge you to find any credible person who agrees with you about Lyle/Cooney.



Young was not badly hurt by Foreman? Yeah right. Go to 20:00 on this video. And the fight was 12 rounds not 15. Whether you "continue to debate me" or not you are flat out wrong here.



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cKVYOZOJLqo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Kid McCoy
11-27-2011, 04:25 PM
Michaecszewski never fought outside of Germany. Period. The first Hall fight was controversial. So that ends your theory that everything would have been fair in Germany. I don't care about websites and polls mean nothing to me. You choose to take DM's word for it. I take Jones and that's where it ends for me.








Toney had a record of 44-0-2 when he fought Jones. How the hell is that "up and down"? You talk about his one fight with Tiberi as if that defined his career. The fight with Tiberi was at 160. At 168 Toney never came close to losing before he fought Jones and I'll say it again, many considered him to be the best fighter in the world at that time. That is a fact. Was Conn up and down with 11 losses when he fought Louis? With your logic he was. Conn rematched fighters that he lost to. You're criticizing Jones for not rematching fighters he clearly beat. How many times did Jones have to beat them for your satisfaction? The Toney fight was not close and neither was the fight with Hopkins. I'm guessing it wouldn't matter. And again I'm not buying that Hopkins was simply a "prospect" when Jones beat him. He was no more a prospect than Jones was. And Hopkins went unbeaten for 12 years after that fight. This is an obvious attempt to discredit the win. If Hopkins got better so did Jones. You can't have it both ways.


Dariusz didn't travel to the US to call Roy out just for the sake of it. He said he was willing to face him in the US. Roy wouldn't even mention his name if he could help it. That tells me who wanted the fight more. I said it was unlikely he'd get robbed against Dariusz and it was unlikely. Hall was one fight out of 50+. If there really was a German conspiracy out to protect Dariusz then Gonzalez wouldn't have got that win.

I was thinking more of Toney's perennial weight issues and indiscipline (dropping something like 30lbs in the weeks before he fought Jones). All his own fault but that was the story of his career. Hopkins going unbeaten doesn't mean he was the finished article and didn't improve. Which recognisable names had Hopkins beaten beforehand to show he was a top fighter? This is the same Hopkins who was knocked down twice and barely got a draw against Segundo Mercado. It was years before he established himself as elite. You say it's discrediting Jones, I say it's putting it in perspective. Jones wasn't much more than a prospect at the time either, which is all the more reason for them to fight again. It has only retrospectively been turned into a huge career-defining win.

It was years later, they were elite guys in his weight range and both fights would have been bigger and more interesting than most he was taking back then. Why not fight them again? Conn fought most of his best opponents more than once and a series of fights always gives a better handle on fighters.

joseph5620
11-27-2011, 05:45 PM
Dariusz didn't travel to the US to call Roy out just for the sake of it. He said he was willing to face him in the US. Roy wouldn't even mention his name if he could help it. That tells me who wanted the fight more. I said it was unlikely he'd get robbed against Dariusz and it was unlikely. Hall was one fight out of 50+. If there really was a German conspiracy out to protect Dariusz then Gonzalez wouldn't have got that win.

I was thinking more of Toney's perennial weight issues and indiscipline (dropping something like 30lbs in the weeks before he fought Jones). All his own fault but that was the story of his career. Hopkins going unbeaten doesn't mean he was the finished article and didn't improve. Which recognisable names had Hopkins beaten beforehand to show he was a top fighter? This is the same Hopkins who was knocked down twice and barely got a draw against Segundo Mercado. It was years before he established himself as elite. You say it's discrediting Jones, I say it's putting it in perspective. Jones wasn't much more than a prospect at the time either, which is all the more reason for them to fight again. It has only retrospectively been turned into a huge career-defining win.

It was years later, they were elite guys in his weight range and both fights would have been bigger and more interesting than most he was taking back then. Why not fight them again? Conn fought most of his best opponents more than once and a series of fights always gives a better handle on fighters.


Kid McCoy I think you're a great poster and I actually learn new things from some of your post. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

Kid McCoy
11-27-2011, 05:50 PM
I agree (so at least we agree on something!) :)

Greatest1942
11-28-2011, 03:02 PM
Now you're being ridiculous. Cooney was not a top 2 heavyweight when he fought Foreman. Period. What he was "ranked" when he fought Holmes is irrelevant. Lyle was a better and more accomplished heavyweight than Cooney regardless of the "ring" rankings which you obviously live by. I challenge you to find any credible person who agrees with you about Lyle/Cooney.



Young was not badly hurt by Foreman? Yeah right. Go to 20:00 on this video. And the fight was 12 rounds not 15. Whether you "continue to debate me" or not you are flat out wrong here.



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cKVYOZOJLqo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lets say Young was hurt. He looks hurt. It was a long time since I saw that fight.The difference between top contenders and average ones is that the that top ones know how to survive onslaughts, one of the reasons its harder to put them way. Which was point I tried to prove about Conn's percentage being misleading.

I picked guys who were top 2 at any time, kind a like beating a ex champ. Its what I thought.

Still, you
1)don't want to use Cooney? Foreman's % still drops more.
2)don't use HolyField and Cooney its still 60, below his career.

And again what Lyle was compared to Cooney is assinine to debate as he was not ranked in the top 2 ever by the ring. The ring rankings are the ones we generally use to find out who the top contenders were at any point.Not Mr Joseph's ranking. Its not what I live by its what most people use when finding trying to find where was a guy ranked in say 1967 or 1945.

As I said Lyle was overshadowed by better heavyweights Cooney got a bit of leeway. His three consecutive Ko's of Jimmy Young,Ron Lyle and Norton helped him be the number 1. It helped that he got some guys like Lyle towards their career end.

I don't know what's your point here. Its a bit stupid to argue on where a guy should have ranked, because he was not ranked there by the ring.And as I have no time to go and analyze year by year since 1924 where each guy should rank each year, I use rings. If you think you know better good, provide me your rankings...I will use it maybe.

joseph5620
11-28-2011, 03:20 PM
Lets say Young was hurt. He looks hurt. The difference between top contenders and average ones is that Top contenders is that top ones know how to survive onslaughts, one of the reasons its harder to put them way.

I picked guys who were top 2 at any time, kind a like beating a ex champ. Its what I thought.

don't want to use Cooney? Foreman's % still drops more.
don't use HolyField and Cooney its still 60 below his career.

And again what Lyle was compared to Cooney is assinine to debate as he was not ranked in the top 2 ever. I don't know what's your point here.





Young was badly hurt. Period. There is no "he looked hurt" "Or lets say he was hurt." Young even said during an interview that he wasn't sure if he would make it at that point. So lets not play games and talk about this as if it's questionable or debatable.. And your fuzzy math is ridiculous. In Foreman's prime only two top fighters went the distance with him. Ali and Young. That doesn't come out to "57 percent" no matter how you try to twist this. To put it simply, Foreman knocked out most of the top fighters he faced. He's the only fighter to brutalize Frazier. The "top 2" analogy you're using is so bizarre that I'm not going to waste time with it. Lyle was ranked higher and more legitimate than Cooney was when he fought Foreman. No amount of "math" and twisting facts is going to change that.


And once again I'm talking about prime Foreman. It's ridiculous to use his fights at 40 plus against him here. I hope you now "get my point".

joseph5620
11-28-2011, 03:40 PM
Lets say Young was hurt. He looks hurt. It was a long time since I saw that fight.The difference between top contenders and average ones is that the that top ones know how to survive onslaughts, one of the reasons its harder to put them way. Which was point I tried to prove about Conn's percentage being misleading.

I picked guys who were top 2 at any time, kind a like beating a ex champ. Its what I thought.

Still, you
1)don't want to use Cooney? Foreman's % still drops more.
2)don't use HolyField and Cooney its still 60, below his career.

And again what Lyle was compared to Cooney is assinine to debate as he was not ranked in the top 2 ever by the ring. The ring rankings are the ones we generally use to find out who the top contenders were at any point.Not Mr Joseph's ranking. Its not what I live by its what most people use when finding trying to find where was a guy ranked in say 1967 or 1945.

As I said Lyle was overshadowed by better heavyweights Cooney got a bit of leeway. His three consecutive Ko's of Jimmy Young,Ron Lyle and Norton helped him be the number 1. It helped that he got some guys like Lyle towards their career end.

I don't know what's your point here. Its a bit stupid to argue on where a guy should have ranked, because he was not ranked there by the ring.And as I have no time to go and analyze year by year since 1924 where each guy should rank each year, I use rings. If you think you know better good, provide me your rankings...I will use it maybe.




What I think is pure nonsense is you using a ranking from 8 years previous to the date of the Foreman fight. "Ring's" rankings of Cooney in 1982 are irrelevant to the Foreman fight. If Ali beat Joe Louis in 1965would he have beaten a highly rated fighter? This is what I find Asinine. The Ring rankings are subjective. I don't care where they rated Cooney. He was not a better opponent than Lyle was. Period.

Greatest1942
11-28-2011, 03:41 PM
Young was badly hurt. Period. There is no "he looked hurt" "Or lets say he was hurt." Young even said during an interview that he wasn't sure if he would make it at that point. So lets not play games and talk about this as if it's questionable or debatable.. And your fuzzy math is ridiculous. In Foreman's prime only two top fighters went the distance with him. Ali and Young. That doesn't come out to "57 percent" no matter how you try to twist this. To put it simply, Foreman knocked out most of the top fighters he faced. He's the only fighter to brutalize Frazier. The "top 2" analogy you're using is so bizarre that I'm not going to waste time with it. Lyle was ranked higher and more legitimate than Cooney was when he fought Foreman. No amount of "math" and twisting facts is going to change that.


And once again I'm talking about prime Foreman. It's ridiculous to use his fights at 40 plus against him here. I hope you now "get my point".

1)Its come down to 60%.Simple maths. Its actually not "no amount", its elementary maths, try it, its not hard. In his prime Foreman had a Ko% well above 80.

2)He fought Ken Norton, Frazier, ali, young who were ranked in the top 2. He stopped 2 , didn't stop 2. (In his prime), i,e KO'd three in 5 fights.

3)Young finished the fight, won the decision. Its the only tangible result. at the end of the day Foreman lost.If he got hurt and still escaped , it shows my point that the top contenders are always harder to knock out.

4)You can use any heavyweight and you will find that 99% of them has a lesser Ko% against top 2 than their career averages. Foreman is no exception , no need to go ballistic. And it also proves why Conn's KO% was low. He was also not remotely as good a P4P banger...

Lets quit this...I think my point is made. I don't want to get into a pointless argument with you.