Tweet
I never aid that. Maybe Billeau did?
Conn was only 23.
Where were Louis, Charles, Marciano, Moore and Walcott at 23? How about Liston? Ali? Holmes? If you want to keep it to Light Heavyweights, Foster was still getting KO'd at 26. Qawi wasn't even a professional at 23. Spinks was 29, and had 10 title defenses, before moving up to beat a FADED Larry Holmes.
And this is Boxing, where fighters are rushed along. When little Modric broke the Messi-Ronaldo monopoly on the Ballon D'Or he was 33! An age when men aren't supposed to still be playing Soccer. You can't play in the NFL without completing college. And Brees, Brady, Rogers - these are all elite QB's now hovering around 40. Some Baseball Pitchers don't really hit their stride until deep in their 30's. Just because a lot of Boxers burn out before legally old enough to rent a car doesn't mean that is how it HAS to happen or is supposed to happen.
Conn clearly had a lot of filling out to do. Although he was usually fighting under the Light Heavyweight limit, he was KO'ing Heavyweights in his build up to the Louis fight. There's a big jump in the performance against Louis from what we saw against Apostoli.
Louis won. Emphatically. No one is dis*****g that. But watching Louis at his best look very human is a remarkable thing. Especially when you're much smaller and not at your best. Charles wouldn't have fared much better than Braddock, if substituted for Conn. Put Conn in there, instead of Charles, and he scores that KO he was after in '41. He certainly doesn't run around with his tail between his legs.
That is really the crux of it. You all but explicitly admit Conn is clearly better than Charles, but try to create an angle for Charles based on his flopping-around there at Heavyweight for such an extended period of time.
I don't deny that the Conn we saw was a true Light Heavyweight, and Charles, at his best, a true Heavyweight. I don't deny that Charles had a longer tenure. But me running further than Usain Bolt doesn't make me FASTER than Usain Bolt, no matter how far I run. Like I asked, are Holyfield, Lewis and Wlad better than Foreman of the 70's? Not according to any Top 10 List I've seen.
Frazier beat Ali when Ali was at his absolute best. The called "The Greatest" and, traditionally, the Division's top-rated fighter, lost when at his greatest. And he lost to one Joe Frazier.
That doesn't include his destruction of: the guy Foreman didn't wanna fight, Jerry Quarry (one of the greatest come-from-behind victories ever), Mathis (the guy SUPPOSED to beat Ali), Chuvalo (so much for indestructible), Ellis and Bonavena (the rematch basically ended Bonavena's career).
Who did Holyfield beat?
When did Frazier struggle with fighters that troubled Holyfield?
I am not trying to go one ANOTHER tangent (conn vs, charles already is one), I'm illustrating how illustrious careers can consume more attention than better careers. Folks tend to conflate: longevity, notable names, and violent finishes with greatness. That's what happens when you try to say Charles was better at Heavyweight than Conn.
Conn was only 23.
Where were Louis, Charles, Marciano, Moore and Walcott at 23? How about Liston? Ali? Holmes? If you want to keep it to Light Heavyweights, Foster was still getting KO'd at 26. Qawi wasn't even a professional at 23. Spinks was 29, and had 10 title defenses, before moving up to beat a FADED Larry Holmes.
And this is Boxing, where fighters are rushed along. When little Modric broke the Messi-Ronaldo monopoly on the Ballon D'Or he was 33! An age when men aren't supposed to still be playing Soccer. You can't play in the NFL without completing college. And Brees, Brady, Rogers - these are all elite QB's now hovering around 40. Some Baseball Pitchers don't really hit their stride until deep in their 30's. Just because a lot of Boxers burn out before legally old enough to rent a car doesn't mean that is how it HAS to happen or is supposed to happen.
Conn clearly had a lot of filling out to do. Although he was usually fighting under the Light Heavyweight limit, he was KO'ing Heavyweights in his build up to the Louis fight. There's a big jump in the performance against Louis from what we saw against Apostoli.
Louis won. Emphatically. No one is dis*****g that. But watching Louis at his best look very human is a remarkable thing. Especially when you're much smaller and not at your best. Charles wouldn't have fared much better than Braddock, if substituted for Conn. Put Conn in there, instead of Charles, and he scores that KO he was after in '41. He certainly doesn't run around with his tail between his legs.
That is really the crux of it. You all but explicitly admit Conn is clearly better than Charles, but try to create an angle for Charles based on his flopping-around there at Heavyweight for such an extended period of time.
I don't deny that the Conn we saw was a true Light Heavyweight, and Charles, at his best, a true Heavyweight. I don't deny that Charles had a longer tenure. But me running further than Usain Bolt doesn't make me FASTER than Usain Bolt, no matter how far I run. Like I asked, are Holyfield, Lewis and Wlad better than Foreman of the 70's? Not according to any Top 10 List I've seen.
Frazier beat Ali when Ali was at his absolute best. The called "The Greatest" and, traditionally, the Division's top-rated fighter, lost when at his greatest. And he lost to one Joe Frazier.
That doesn't include his destruction of: the guy Foreman didn't wanna fight, Jerry Quarry (one of the greatest come-from-behind victories ever), Mathis (the guy SUPPOSED to beat Ali), Chuvalo (so much for indestructible), Ellis and Bonavena (the rematch basically ended Bonavena's career).
Who did Holyfield beat?
When did Frazier struggle with fighters that troubled Holyfield?
I am not trying to go one ANOTHER tangent (conn vs, charles already is one), I'm illustrating how illustrious careers can consume more attention than better careers. Folks tend to conflate: longevity, notable names, and violent finishes with greatness. That's what happens when you try to say Charles was better at Heavyweight than Conn.
Comment