Roy Jones vs Billy Conn (resume and p4p standing)

[JAB5239]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.