1941 Billy Conn vs 1916 Jess Willard

[JAB5239]

i cant find much out about the fight.

as willard was a replacement for levenski how long did willard have to train for it?

Im not sure, but the year before that he also lost to George Rodel who he outweighed by 50lbs. To me this shows a pattern of having struggled with smaller fighters. You could of course counter this argument with the assumption (since neither of us can be sure) that big Jess didn't have enough time to train. I would of course point out that neither of those men could hold a candle to that of Conn and the difference in skill (going by resumes) is huge. You've pointed out that Jess staggered Dempsey with a jab. Dempsey came rushing in going for the kill and was there to be hit. That would never be Conns strategy. You've also used the term "he can run, but he can't hide". But Willard was no Louis whether it be power, speed or boxing IQ. Sure he has a punchers chance. But if we go by what we know of each fighter in an objective manner Conn is the choice here. Jmo.

[Spartacus Sully]

Im not sure, but the year before that he also lost to George Rodel who he outweighed by 50lbs. To me this shows a pattern of having struggled with smaller fighters. You could of course counter this argument with the assumption (since neither of us can be sure) that big Jess didn't have enough time to train. I would of course point out that neither of those men could hold a candle to that of Conn and the difference in skill (going by resumes) is huge. You've pointed out that Jess staggered Dempsey with a jab. Dempsey came rushing in going for the kill and was there to be hit. That would never be Conns strategy. You've also used the term "he can run, but he can't hide". But Willard was no Louis whether it be power, speed or boxing IQ. Sure he has a punchers chance. But if we go by what we know of each fighter in an objective manner Conn is the choice here. Jmo.

earlier in the year he got beat by rondell then right before mcmahon he beat rondel in 9 with a diffrence of 45 lbs and then after mcmahon he beat rondel in 6.

i wouldnt say he had trouble with smaller fighters (as most he fought were smaller then him cept morris who did give him problems) id just say he was more apathetic twords training when fighting much smaller fighters.

objective? facts are willard was 69 lbs heavier then conn and conn had very little experience fighting people imensly bigger then him with his only notable win against a heavier opponet with savold as far as i can tell.

you can run but you cant hide can be used by jeffries vs fitz or johnson vs ketchel. all you need is stamina to eventually catch some one lighter then you and willard had the weight advantage and the stamina when he trained

[JAB5239]

earlier in the year he got beat by rondell then right before mcmahon he beat rondel in 9 with a diffrence of 45 lbs and then after mcmahon he beat rondel in 6.

i wouldnt say he had trouble with smaller fighters (as most he fought were smaller then him cept morris who did give him problems) id just say he was more apathetic twords training when fighting much smaller fighters.

objective? facts are willard was 69 lbs heavier then conn and conn had very little experience fighting people imensly bigger then him with his only notable win against a heavier opponet with savold as far as i can tell.

you can run but you cant hide can be used by jeffries vs fitz or johnson vs ketchel. all you need is stamina to eventually catch some one lighter then you and willard had the weight advantage and the stamina when he trained

Willard lost to fighters none of us would classify as being in the same league as Billy Conn, right or wrong?

Conn showed enough skill and heart to hang with arguably the greatest heavyweight fighter ever, right or wrong?

You're basing your argument on size. Im basing mine on skill. If Willard were a more skilled fighter I may be inclined to agree with you. But he wasn't a very skilled fighter and he lost to lesser fighter than Conn. Those are facts my friend.

[Spartacus Sully]

Willard lost to fighters none of us would classify as being in the same league as Billy Conn, right or wrong?

Conn showed enough skill and heart to hang with arguably the greatest heavyweight fighter ever, right or wrong?

You're basing your argument on size. Im basing mine on skill. If Willard were a more skilled fighter I may be inclined to agree with you. But he wasn't a very skilled fighter and he lost to lesser fighter than Conn. Those are facts my friend.

the 2 statements are correct but they dont really say anything about how the match would end up head to head.

it seems more like you basing your argument on resume and skill shown against people imcomparable to willard. while i have size skill resume and historical prescedents all factored in.

willard has a much better heavy weight resume, is much larger, and incredibl weight diffrences almost allways end up with one out boxing the other till he gets put down.

im sure you would agree that floyd patterson should have easily outpointed liston too right just like he would destroy both klitschkos. though 13 rounds is alot better then just one.

[JAB5239]

the 2 statements are correct but they dont really say anything about how the match would end up head to head.

it seems more like you basing your argument on resume and skill shown against people imcomparable to willard. while i have size skill resume and historical prescedents all factored in.

If you agree with both statements it would be ludicrous to say Conn doesn't stand a chance when men his size and with far less skills turned that very trick against Willard, no?

willard has a much better heavy weight resume, is much larger, and incredibl weight diffre3nces almost allways end up with one out boxing the other till he gets put down.

History is littered with bigger men being taken apart by smaller but much more skilled fighters.

im sure you would agree that floyd patterson should have easily outpointed liston too right?

Im sure of two things here my man. 1, Liston was a far better fighter than Willard. 2, Patterson had a terrible game plan for both his fights with Liston.

[Spartacus Sully]

Im sure of two things here my man. 1, Liston was a far better fighter than Willard. 2, Patterson had a terrible game plan for both his fights with Liston.

eh could be though in my mind ill continue to think that willard just didnt train that hard against smaller guys and the willard that got in the ring with johnson very well might have killed conn.

size isnt everything......but it is a decent part of the picture......

history is just as littered with matches where size overcame speed and skill.

though if willard really did have problems with massivly smaller guys and not because of a lack in training then conn has a pretty good chance.

[Great John L]

This would be the most boring fight. Conn would have a very difficult time trying to jab and outbox Willard from a distance when Willard has such a huge height and reach advantage.