head to head Billy Conn Ezzard Charles

[Tom Cruise]

Shot? Oh yeah? Why was that? He was only 32.

Because he was 121 fights deep fighting with a tough style against the absolute best his era had to offer over 3 weight classes.

Of course, Conn fought way into his 30s and a certain poster on here didn’t say that we can’t give Louis credit for beating him at the tender age of 29... that would be ridiculous.

[Rusty Tromboni]

You don't pour a "tall one" neat Rusty. You use a rocks glass, sans the rocks, or even a shot glass depending... The tall ones are for mixed drinks. Sheesh come on!

Ill just have to pour this beer in a Martini glass.

Nope. Only an alcoholic drinks straight from the bottle. But I need to kill a lot of brain cells to hear this. So just what exactly - that is, what do you believe you read, and by whom - makes Joey Maxim, a Light Heavyweight rarely ranked in the top 10-20 of his division, better than Joe Louis, whom many still rank as the greatest Heavyweight ever? I'm a big fan of Maxim and usually critical of Louis, so if there's anyone you should feel comfortable sharing your bizarro theory with, it's me.

Because he was 121 fights deep fighting with a tough style against the absolute best his era had to offer over 3 weight classes.

But I thought he was a wonderfully skilled and
versatile fighter, both on offense and defense?

So which is it?

Lomachenko is his age, and probably still improving, despite being some 50 pounds lighter.

Outside of Marciano, what great fighter did he face?

For what it's worth, I think the world of Marciano. I also hold Floyd in high regard. I come across very critical of them here because they have deranged fans who seem to believe they're literally invincible, and don't seem to recognize them as mortal men. They really attract the most absurd and out-spoken fans. Not all their fans are that way, but the most vociferous and hostile usually after.

So while I think the Marciano-Charles fights were wonderful performances by both men, I can't say Marciano was Louis equal. No one would, not in terms of a H2H match up.

I also wouldn't say that simply putting up a good fight against Marciano matches Loughran's success against a variety of skilled and dangerous Heavyweights. None of them put it all together offensively like Marciano, nor did any consistently perform at 100%. I won't dispute those facts. But that's not equivalent with being as dangerous or skilled as the calibre of Heavyweight Loughran fought on the whole.

Loughran couldn't get a fight with Dempsey. And he wouldn't/ couldn't get a fight with Louis. That Tommy Loughran never became Heavyweight champion, or at least didn't get a shot against one of the great champions (or in a rematch with Braddock) was considered a great disappointment.

You know what else was considered a great disappointment? The fact that Ezzard Charles became Heavyweight champion at all.

[Tom Cruise]

Nope. Only an alcoholic drinks straight from the bottle. But I need to kill a lot of brain cells to hear this. So just what exactly - that is, what do you believe you read, and by whom - makes Joey Maxim, a Light Heavyweight rarely ranked in the top 10-20 of his division, better than Joe Louis, whom many still rank as the greatest Heavyweight ever? I'm a big fan of Maxim and usually critical of Louis, so if there's anyone you should feel comfortable sharing your bizarro theory with, it's me.



But I thought he was a wonderfully skilled and
versatile fighter, both on offense and defense?

So which is it?

Lomachenko is his age, and probably still improving, despite being some 50 pounds lighter.

Outside of Marciano, what great fighter did he face?

For what it's worth, I think the world of Marciano. I also hold Floyd in high regard. I come across very critical of them here because they have deranged fans who seem to believe they're literally invincible, and don't seem to recognize them as mortal men. They really attract the most absurd and out-spoken fans. Not all their fans are that way, but the most vociferous and hostile usually after.

So while I think the Marciano-Charles fights were wonderful performances by both men, I can't say Marciano was Louis equal. No one would, not in terms of a H2H match up.

I also wouldn't say that simply putting up a good fight against Marciano matches Loughran's success against a variety of skilled and dangerous Heavyweights. None of them put it all together offensively like Marciano, nor did any consistently perform at 100%. I won't dispute those facts. But that's not equivalent with being as dangerous or skilled as the calibre of Heavyweight Loughran fought on the whole.

Loughran couldn't get a fight with Dempsey. And he wouldn't/ couldn't get a fight with Louis. That Tommy Loughran never became Heavyweight champion, or at least didn't get a shot against one of the great champions (or in a rematch with Braddock) was considered a great disappointment.

You know what else was considered a great disappointment? The fact that Ezzard Charles became Heavyweight champion at all.

Yeah and Archie Moore had a prime that lasted well into his 40s, but supposedly he’s a bum so longevity obviously doesn’t count for much right?

I honestly don’t think we are going to gain anything by me going through the many many great fighters that Charles beat. I can already see myself getting annoyed when you dismiss them for no reason other than it was ‘a wasteland post war’ while providing no real evidence or reasoning at all for that assumption.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Of course, Conn fought way into his 30s and a certain poster on here didn’t say that we can’t give Louis credit for beating him at the tender age of 29... that would be ridiculous.

Conn didn't fight as long, so maybe it's unfair comparing him to fighters whose careers spanned decades. But fighting for a long time doesn't presume greatness.

Conn retired because he married and the War cost him his momentum. He didn't need to work in the steel mill. He actually accomplished a lot in his short run, despite being most famous for coming up short against Louis.

While it's not unreasonable to believe Conn's career could've continued for for decades, just like Robinson and Moore's. It might be unrealistic to ask for even another 10 years from Conn, considering how ridiculous his career had already been. It seems clear, though, that without the War's incursion on his career, he eventually does wrest the belt from Joe Louis. That's just an honest reflection of their career trajectories.

Billy looked a lot better against a prime Joe Louis than a prime Joe Louis looked against an old Max Schmeling. But as a clear indication that inactivity is worse than ring-ware, Conn at 28 was a far cry from the fighter he had been at 23. It's tragic he was even still fighting. But it showed him he didn't need Boxing anymore, he had everything he needed to live a happy productive life.

I can understand why that truncated career looks more like a disappointment than anything else. But if you look at his run up to meeting Louis and the performance itself, it's hard to see Ezzard Charles as his equal. Championship or not. Full, uninterrupted career or not. Lots of anachronistic and revisionist reflections or not.

[billeau2]

Nope. Only an alcoholic drinks straight from the bottle. But I need to kill a lot of brain cells to hear this. So just what exactly - that is, what do you believe you read, and by whom - makes Joey Maxim, a Light Heavyweight rarely ranked in the top 10-20 of his division, better than Joe Louis, whom many still rank as the greatest Heavyweight ever? I'm a big fan of Maxim and usually critical of Louis, so if there's anyone you should feel comfortable sharing your bizarro theory with, it's me.



But I thought he was a wonderfully skilled and
versatile fighter, both on offense and defense?

So which is it?

Lomachenko is his age, and probably still improving, despite being some 50 pounds lighter.

Outside of Marciano, what great fighter did he face?

For what it's worth, I think the world of Marciano. I also hold Floyd in high regard. I come across very critical of them here because they have deranged fans who seem to believe they're literally invincible, and don't seem to recognize them as mortal men. They really attract the most absurd and out-spoken fans. Not all their fans are that way, but the most vociferous and hostile usually after.

So while I think the Marciano-Charles fights were wonderful performances by both men, I can't say Marciano was Louis equal. No one would, not in terms of a H2H match up.

I also wouldn't say that simply putting up a good fight against Marciano matches Loughran's success against a variety of skilled and dangerous Heavyweights. None of them put it all together offensively like Marciano, nor did any consistently perform at 100%. I won't dispute those facts. But that's not equivalent with being as dangerous or skilled as the calibre of Heavyweight Loughran fought on the whole.

Loughran couldn't get a fight with Dempsey. And he wouldn't/ couldn't get a fight with Louis. That Tommy Loughran never became Heavyweight champion, or at least didn't get a shot against one of the great champions (or in a rematch with Braddock) was considered a great disappointment.

You know what else was considered a great disappointment? The fact that Ezzard Charles became Heavyweight champion at all.

Well...If you put down that bottle regardless you would realize your own twisted logic made maxim so great... After all according to you it was Robinson's loss to him that allows you to cite various obscure fighters who "s h i t on anything Robinson did" remember saying that? and remember propping up someone like Conn and making Maxim into a giant killer? when Robinson had exhausted himself and was not losing that fight?

See unfortunatly when you blow hard all day, you forget some of the crazy conclusions you draw aye Trombone?

You really need to reign yourself in. My campaign is not to harm but rather to give you a taste of the crap you spew and think nothing of saying... Most people, INCLUDING THOSE AT THE FIGHT THAT NIGHT seem to think Robinson caught the heat in a way he could not physically overcome, but in your twisted rhetoric, the Maxim fight stands supreme...

[billeau2]

Conn didn't fight as long, so maybe it's unfair comparing him to fighters whose careers spanned decades. But fighting for a long time doesn't presume greatness.

Conn retired because he married and the War cost him his momentum. He didn't need to work in the steel mill. He actually accomplished a lot in his short run, despite being most famous for coming up short against Louis.

While it's not unreasonable to believe Conn's career could've continued for for decades, just like Robinson and Moore's. It might be unrealistic to ask for even another 10 years from Conn, considering how ridiculous his career had already been. It seems clear, though, that without the War's incursion on his career, he eventually does wrest the belt from Joe Louis. That's just an honest reflection of their career trajectories.

Billy looked a lot better against a prime Joe Louis than a prime Joe Louis looked against an old Max Schmeling. But as a clear indication that inactivity is worse than ring-ware, Conn at 28 was a far cry from the fighter he had been at 23. It's tragic he was even still fighting. But it showed him he didn't need Boxing anymore, he had everything he needed to live a happy productive life.

I can understand why that truncated career looks more like a disappointment than anything else. But if you look at his run up to meeting Louis and the performance itself, it's hard to see Ezzard Charles as his equal. Championship or not. Full, uninterrupted career or not. Lots of anachronistic and revisionist reflections or not.

First statement that cannot logically seem clear to anyone who uses reason. Most rematches are won by the original victor. Louis defeated Schmelling in his rematch. That is conjecture and I am not letting you get away with more BS.

Even worse conjecture. Conn lost to the best fighters he fought, including Serifino Garcia... and he never even fought fighters as good as whom Charles fought. So what do you do? you prop up fighters who were not great... pasteur becomes great so you can pop off about Conn again... Stop the BS all someone has to do is a little bit of thought to show you are a moron Rusty.

Then you cry the cry of "Allllllllllllll those fans....they just repeat what they have heard.............. poor poor me, trying to look at things clearly, and and and...I encounter all these non thinking repeators....

yeah right, what a bunch of BS!! lol.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Yeah and Archie Moore had a prime that lasted well into his 40s, but supposedly he’s a bum so longevity obviously doesn’t count for much right?

You really think he stays at top Heavyweight in any other era?

Whenever he stepped up he was stopped. Ali stopped him. Patterson stopped him. Have you seen the first fight with Yvon Durrelle?

Can you tell me who he was beating at this time?


This is what I love schit Boxing fans. They love fighters they know nothing about. Because someone told them something about a fighter they take it as Gospel.

Average Joe: "He fought for 25 years and had 400 fights!"

Me: "OK, against who?"

Average Joe: "Ummm... that ONE other famous guy"

Me: "can you nane some else?"

Average Joe: ummm... well... they were really tough in those days! Real fighters who didn't A LOT!

Me: "OK, so how about just the championship opponents"?

Average Joe: uhh... they had SKILLZ,yo. Really skilled fighters.

Me: cool, what skills did he have?

Average Joe: you don't get it, Kevin. This guy had skills.

Me: like what?

Average Joe: everyone knows it, everyone says it.

Me: i'm not asking everyone, i'm asking you.

Average Joe: "he fought for decades, and had hundreds of fights"

See how that goes?

I definitely consider Moore skilled and lethal. But he reached his ceiling at Heavyweight against Marciano - a guy who turned Pro at 24 with virtually no amateur career to speak of, and who retired 49-0 (43) in about 8 years. A small Heavyweight with no great proclivity for Boxing skill. Indisputably a force of nature - talented, tough, disciplined, determined and a strategic genius. But very likely someone who wouldn't be champ in any other era - so easily or for so long, undernormal circumstances.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Well...If you put down that bottle regardless you would realize your own twisted logic made maxim so great... After all according to you it was Robinson's loss to him that allows you to cite various obscure fighters who "s h i t on anything Robinson did" remember saying that? and remember propping up someone like Conn and making Maxim into a giant killer? when Robinson had exhausted himself and was not losing that fight?

See unfortunatly when you blow hard all day, you forget some of the crazy conclusions you draw aye Trombone?

You really need to reign yourself in. My campaign is not to harm but rather to give you a taste of the crap you spew and think nothing of saying... Most people, INCLUDING THOSE AT THE FIGHT THAT NIGHT seem to think Robinson caught the heat in a way he could not physically overcome, but in your twisted rhetoric, the Maxim fight stands supreme...

So you're turning down a chance to tell a story?


The guy who has no time for facts, and takes every opportunity to take us down any random rabbit hole...

[Rusty Tromboni]

First statement that cannot logically seem clear to anyone who uses reason. Most rematches are won by the original victor. Louis defeated Schmelling in his rematch. That is conjecture and I am not letting you get away with more BS.

Even worse conjecture. Conn lost to the best fighters he fought, including Serifino Garcia... and he never even fought fighters as good as whom Charles fought. So what do you do? you prop up fighters who were not great... pasteur becomes great so you can pop off about Conn again... Stop the BS all someone has to do is a little bit of thought to show you are a moron Rusty.

Then you cry the cry of "Allllllllllllll those fans....they just repeat what they have heard.............. poor poor me, trying to look at things clearly, and and and...I encounter all these non thinking repeators....

yeah right, what a bunch of BS!! lol.

Hey George, nice of you to drop in, how's that dual Mustard-Ketchup bottle coming? I think you're really on to something there.

[billeau2]

So you're turning down a chance to tell a story?


The guy who has no time for facts, and takes every opportunity to take us down any random rabbit hole...

Oh Trombone...you give me plenty of opportunities to tell my stories...