Roy Jones vs Billy Conn (resume and p4p standing)

[Welsh Jon]

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]

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.

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 ****. 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 ****, 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]

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]

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 ****. 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 ****, 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]

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]

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 ****. 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 ****, 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 dis*****g, as we do agree on the most controversial ones, and in h2h anyone's opinion is valid, its too subjective.

[joseph5620]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.