Roy Jones vs Billy Conn (resume and p4p standing)

[joseph5620]

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.

[Kid McCoy]

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]

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]

I agree (so at least we agree on something!)

[Greatest1942]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[JAB5239]

This is an old thread but I'd love to hear some new opinions.

[The Old LefHook]

It is a great thread topic because the boys size up well on paper and mythically.

You know without doubt that fighters from Billy's era were forced to wade through a deeper talent pool to ascend to the top. The talent pool was not split into four or five pieces. Take the top ten from any division of the top five alphabet soup organizations today, and you will find at least forty different fighters listed in the top ten. Hmmm...

Conn fought consistently tougher opposition and had the better chin.

Roy did not face opposition quite as tough and experienced most of the time, but when he did, he dominated them almost as easily as he did his lesser conquests.

H2H, Roy has greater one-pop power than Billy, and he is faster. But he never faced anyone as fast and busy as Billy, either, who seems designed to give him all kinds of trouble.

Despite obvious stance differences, the match resembles how a timely Calzaghe/Jones match might have unfolded, if Calzaghe could have hung around long enough to warm up and survive a surprise Jones bomb, like he did in the untimely (and therefore somewhat meaningless) bout they did have that was years late.

H2H is the main part of the discussion that interests me. These men are built to amaze each other in the ring.

If I thought Roy's chin were as strong as Billy's, Roy would probably win, if he fought right, which would be to mix it up with Billy. But his chin is not as strong, IMO. Even though Conn is hitting you all the time, he is also moving constantly, which means Roy has to go after him at some point. He may need to cut the ring off and trap Conn. Then again, the speed of Jones may be capable of exploiting the opportunity when any man touches him, in motion or not. It would just have to play out in the ring, which we can imagine in any detail we want, but not with much reliability. That is what would make this such a great match on paper, once one throws in the intangibles. Roy had some of the quickest cat-feet to ever appear in a ring. But he did not cover the ring in motion like a SRL. He liked to stand there and move to get an angle as the man was coming in at him. We would have to see how that played out, and if Roy would have the ring generalship to fight differently if the need arose, which it might, if Billy's mastery of orthodox boxing prevents Roy from landing the shots he needs fighting his lazy way.

I think a prime Conn would be the best opponent Jones ever faced.

But Conn would be fighting a lightning bolt.

Both men lack the highest instincts of ring generalship. Jones will probably not be active enough against Conn, but Conn is susceptible to bigtime lapses in generalship (which is mostly a sense of what should be done now).

Because of Roy's blazing speed, it might be possible for him to KO Billy with a single shot Billy never sees at all, careless moment or not, even though it did take a number of shots for even the mighty Louis to pound him down. I believe it is mostly really fast fighters who have a number of one-punch KO's to their credit, like Roy and Robinson. That is a spontaneous surmisal I may need to investigate further, because certainly slower fighters score one punch KO's from time to time too. But it is a little off-topic for now, I suppose, and for my mood.